I’d rather have an organisation dependent on funding from a democratically-elected government negotiated on a regular schedule and whose board is at least nominally arms-length, than one in hock to big business.
How is somebody dependent on revenue from soulless corporations independent? They are the worst for suppressing news, especially about them or their friends. Do something they don’t like and revenues start dropping like rocks.
You really don’t want them to become dependant on advertisers.
Also, there would be potential conflicts of interest with those advertisers and the content.
How is an organisation totally dependent on govt funding and legal backing (and whose board is appointed by the PM) in any way “independent” ?
Because they don’t have to bend over backwards to any entity that promises to give them money. Government money is guaranteed, no matter the content.
I’d rather have an organisation dependent on funding from a democratically-elected government negotiated on a regular schedule and whose board is at least nominally arms-length, than one in hock to big business.
How is somebody dependent on revenue from soulless corporations independent? They are the worst for suppressing news, especially about them or their friends. Do something they don’t like and revenues start dropping like rocks.
Why not? Do you really think that BBC is independent? Then think again.
That’s not helped by making them less independent.