The BBC is indirectly funded, but not controlled by the UK government. It's possible that the government could threaten to cut the BBC's budget by reducing the cost of the TV license, or not raising it along with inflation, unless it changed its news coverage. However, a tactic like this would go over about as well as a proposition to repeal the first amendment would in the United States.
I'm Australian, and we have the ABC. So, assuming you're British, we're coming from the same page.
That said, the GP does have a point. The only thing preventing the possibility of closed-door deals going on between the BBC and political parties is good faith. Ergo, if it's not already happening or hasn't already happened, which is unlikely, there's no reason it can't happen in future.
Note: despite Australia's high exposure to UK content, I don't know much about the British media landscape. I haven't read the BBC's charter (nor the ABC's, for that matter).
Edit:
It's a tradeoff of different goals. On one hand, you get a news agency which can focus on news - not entertainment as would be dictated by a comittment to profit. On the other hand, that news agency is more susceptible to decisions by government. Consider: what determined the BBC's spending cuts?
I think publicly-owned news organisations are a great idea. The ABC, BBC, and NPR usually provide great news coverage. They have no need to sensationalize content, and that services the public to no end.
> The only thing preventing the possibility of closed-door deals going on between the BBC and political parties is good faith. Ergo, if it's not already happening or hasn't already happened, which is unlikely, there's no reason it can't happen in future.
Political parties could equally make backroom deals with private media companies as well. It would also be considerably less risky, because they wouldn't have to violate the Royal Charter.
The problem with backroom deals concerning the license fee is that they have to be remain secret, yet affect how the news is reported without drawing suspicion. Any control would have to be very subtle.
Ensure a reduction in TV license fees, perhaps, or schedule a big, expensive inquiry into whether the BBC is systematically biased in its reporting. After all, the people pay for it so the people have a right to know, regardless of how many millions of pounds it costs the BBC.
Reducing the TV license fee at the same time the BBC is going to report something unfavourable to the current government might seem just a little suspicious, don't you think?
An government inquiry into the BBC's reporting would be even worse, as it would be a clear violation of the BBC's independence.
> Reducing the TV license fee at the same time the BBC is going to report something unfavourable to the current government might seem just a little suspicious, don't you think?
That's why you don't reduce it right away. You threaten to reduce it if they're impolitic enough to pursue certain courses. You make this fairly clear to them. The actual decisions come from the BBC's own leadership, acting on such knowledge.
> An government inquiry into the BBC's reporting would be even worse, as it would be a clear violation of the BBC's independence.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. The only independence the BBC can have under its funding model is if it decided to risk going downhill and no longer being able to do the good things it's doing now. A reduction in license fees would accomplish that, meaning if you can wave that stick around the BBC will waive its independence and allow investigations.
