> You didn't -say- "the mass media", though. You said "the US government". Our government does not control the "mass media" (other than rules against broadcasting profanity or sexually explicit material at certain times on certain TV channels or radio stations). I know in Canada the government has a more active role in television production for some reason, and I think the same is true in the U.K. (I can't remember whether the BBC is run by the government or not), but the United States does not hold these practices, and it cannot be reasonably argued that they control television or movies or whatever, whether for pro-American propaganda or otherwise. (PBS is "public"; I don't know if that means they just rely on donations or if they also get tax support. If they do, they're certainly the exception, and all they ever really show on there is educational programming and old British sitcomes anyway.)

Yes, the BBC is state-owned, state-run, and funded by taxpayers - this is where the TV licence fee comes from. However, there is also an independent regulator (the Independent Television Commission, I believe) who set down the rules by which all broadcasters, including the BBC, must abide by. When it comes to TV, the government is just another broadcaster, which must abide by the same rules as ITV and BSkyB and Channel Four and all the rest of the broadcasters. If it did seem likely that the Government was trying to control what the ITC was doing, then the papers would be on to it like a shot. Especially since Rupert Murdoch owns News International and Sky. The government doesn't even control the BBC *that* tightly anyway.

Oh, and re: PBS: What's wrong with a channel that only shows old British comedy? ;-)

Zarniwoop