> > 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.

Wrong on all counts. The BBC is an independant company, though one that's not expected to make any money. It is compeletly independant of the government, and appoints its own management without government interference (though the current Director-General is strongly Blairite). The licence fee does *not* come out of taxes, and has nothing to do with taxation. A tax-payer who doesn't own a TV will not pay a licence fee.

> 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.

Let's see what the Murdoch papers say about the BBC now that ITVDigital is being taken over by a Sky/BBC consortium. That might be interesting.

And the ITC is more concerned with advertising standards than program content or political bias, though their remit does cover those as well. So the BBC (not carrying adverts) is mostly immune to them.

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

winter"The BBC is supposed to be politically strictly neutral, but it's not at the moment"mute