The BBC is a class act that puts most to shame. From the video series such as Planet Earth to their "actual" investigative journalism they are far above other news agencies. If I want to know what is going on in the United States or anywhere else in the world without corporate manipulation of the truth I turn to the BBC.

John

BBC is in the enviable position that they are guranteed their income through the TV license. We have the same system in Denmark.
That means that they have a political mandate to be impartial, and "public service". That is not to say that everything they do is good, but they can afford to be a bit more thorough.

That means that they have a political mandate to be impartial, and "public service".
========
American media have the same mandate according to the FCC, but they don't follow it.

John

The FCC was castrated during the Regan administration which led to the fine work American corporate news outlets are doing today. /snark

I watched Michael Ware on CNN a few days ago, he somehow has propaganda and news mixed up, hell if you are going to be a puppet at least try to hide the strings…..i see he also got banged up a bit in Bagdad…that must have been real scary

Micky I don’t care what they tell you,we aren’t brainwashed….we are protected by something called integrity

Rory

"BBC is in the enviable position that they are guranteed their income through the TV license.".

That's cool, but it also means that they don't really have to try that hard. There's really no competition. So the fact that they do put out well-produced shows is impressive.

"That's cool, but it also means that they don't really have to try that hard." - Please expand, elucidate on your "to try that hard"? Several Parliamentary debates, a Board of governors more stringent than the Bank of England, a bunch of cross-party enquiries as to coverage of the last Iraq war AND the most recent public bearing of the collective moral breast, over the inclusion of a "particular" party's Chairman, in arguably the UK's most watched current affairs OPEN debate forum - you can't, aren't referring to those type of "hardness's"? Are you?

"There's really no competition." - OK? So that wouldn't be the 40-odd million people who legally own and run a tellie? It wouldn't be them that the BBC are needing to keep happy? Nor would it be the competition from the "other" channels who get income from advertisers? It wouldn't be them then? Oh, and BTW, those same commercial channels are airing BBC archived content to separate out their adverts. Ironic . . . . Nor would it be the swelling ranks of free access INTERNET sites now coming along?

"So the fact that they do put out well-produced shows is impressive." - (Feint praise - methinks?) Ah, is this the ole "Because-there-IS-a-subsidy-thus-making-the-BBC-akin-to-being-amateur-outfit-so-they-really-ain't-having-to-cut-it-in-the-"real"-commercial-World" - argument? Is that it? And AS they put out good work, and in SPITE of this it is impressive? Is that it? Flaccid!!! . . The BBC is impressive BECAUSE they are IMPRESSIVE and have truly high (mostly) standards!!!

I'm up for being critical of the BBC. I sit opposite my BRAVIA and wail & gnash me teeth when I see stuff that is badly strung together, see commissioned work that was badly carried out or should have been aborted at the "pitch" stage. I'm always looking for fault. High standards means that accrues miserably ole gits like me! Strangely enough, I DON'T do this with commercial TV 'cos I understand they don't have to try so hard as the BBC, as long as they keep the advertising revenue pouring in and THAT means hit as many people as possible that will fulfil their socio-economic shape for THAT time of the day.

Grazie

I'm up for being critical of the

couldn't agree more, though the abc down here doesn't have a license fee, but still makes the commercial channels look like the shit they are (yes, i use that word knowingly).

we have a second 'government' backed channel - sbs, which started out as special broadcasting service, to cover the wants and needs of a very multicultural audience, and for years it did this job very effectively. recent it should have its name to sports broadcasting services, and be damned for the level of crass advertising ruining films / doco's etc.,

then again, all it takes is a quick look at who we have in government (no, not left or right) but accountants, lawyers, and secondrate middle managers who have no idea what 'public service' means, no morals other than the lust for power, and a general contempt for anyone with less money than they have - and i'm sure that no matter where you are, your representative is well paid, well supported by his local buisness groups, and not in the least adverse to whatever hand-out might come his / her way.

hell, we even have an ex rocker (peter garrett of the midnight oils) in charge of a ministry - and it just goes to show you that no matter how much he sang about corporate corruption, he now seems to be part of that well oiled machine.....

rant off

Gee Grazie, I didn't realize I was stirring up a hornet's nest by saying that I liked some of their shows. You obviously have some serious issues with the BBC. You've put more thought into this than I have. I really don't care one way or another.

I got news for you. Whether it's government-run television there, or advertiser supported here, there will always be great shows and there will always be crap shows.

"You've put more thought into this than I have." Thank you for the plaudit. But, oh dear, then you have to go and spoil it with: "I really don't care one way or another." . . pity . . .

" . . there will always be great shows and there will always be crap shows." - Masterly! Pure unadulterated rhetoric and phrasing of the highest order.

Grazie