Hey Phil K Where do you get off bashing the U.S.A ? The post you trashed was not in any way bashing your country. Us " yanks " as you call us have bailed you out in ways to numerous to mention. Show some respect for your big brother eh?? Or are you still fretting over our stepping out of your royalty??
The independence of the BBC was threatened by the sacking of Greg Dyke and subsequent so called reforms in the light of Andrew Gilligan's reports that Iraq documents were "sexed up."
David Kelly lost his life and Greg Dyke got fired for something that was pretty much proved to be true. The BBC attitude changed after those incidents and they started to self censor in a way other news channels didn't have to. Channel 4 came into their own in this news period providing one of the few dissenting voices against what was and is a war fought for greed and profit.
It isn't fair that a Government in a Democratic country can say,” We don't like what you are broadcasting, stop it or else. However that is the legal situation in the UK and more so in the States and it always has been."
In the UK there is a legal framework for doing this called a D Notice which stops any broadcaster publishing or broadcasting details to which it is applied. In America they went one stage further and the embedded media concept was taken to its logical conclusion where only one side of the argument is heard or seen.
I think the idea that the BBC could be either totally impartial or totally biased is a silly one because they BBC is a massive organization which evolves on a day to day basis. Their will be pockets of impartiality on certain issues and those also within the Corporation that will fight against that.
I think that at the moment the balance of power lies with those who wish to seek security of the Royal Charter and a continued remit. In this way the BBC can never really be impartial because they are bound to the Government of the day. Neither can any other corporate entity that has to sing for its supper.
True impartiality is achieved by the individual educating themselves and not expecting to be spoon their values. I think the BBC is a great tool for gathering information so long as the individual knows how to separate opinion from fact.
"News censored by the British government, no thank you "
What's the matter ? No IRA terrorist news add-on ? Some of you yanks wouldn't know unbiased coverage if it was urinating on your face. I'm no fan of the polically-correct BBC. But it's more reliable than most and a thousand percent more intelligent than "lowest common denominator" American news. But the ONLY reason for the drippy comments like "mikeymike" and the other pillock are NOT against the BBC but their own ugly bias that they've been brainwashed by from day one.
I use many other sites for news and searching, but I keep coming back to the BBC site because it's reliable, impartial and free from advertisements.
It's independence is constructed in legal terms through its charter and governance, but is rooted in the fact that the BBC is much valued by the UK public, and elsewhere around the world. There are good and bad commercial sites, but the fact that they have private funding doesn't make them independent.
You might also like to try http://www.channel4.com/news/ which is another UK broadcaster renowned for the quality of its news and current affairs programmes.
The BBC provides a balanced, in depth view of world and local news. Funded mainly by the licence fee it has a remit to provide balanced reporting, and is subject to the scrutiny of the BBC Trust... "The Trust represents the public and makes sure the Executive delivers the high-quality public service programmes and services the public want, and also ensures that the BBC is accountable and open. The Trust protects the independence of the BBC from commercial or political influence." There's more here http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/trust/governance/trust_gov_impart.shtml