dastardly said:
1) INFORM
I'm assuming here we're talking about the News. The BBC gets its money from the government, however indirectly you try to paint it. As you so aptly stated, the fees are law. That means that the BBC has a responsibility to make Parliament happy, or at least certain members (and their ideologies).
The BBC also has a legal obligation to remain unbiased. Not pandering to the big business giving large amounts of money to the company actually helps in this regard.
If you think the BBC is making the Government happy, then clearly you haven't seen many of the news programs, particularly under the last 4 years of the Labour government.
In America, our news is paid for by the advertising media. Now, that means that TV ratings control what the news says and doesn't say... but it also means that the government has a lot less control over what the news feels comfortable saying. All news is slanted, it's just a question of "by whom." At least here, we can have thousands of different influences instead of Parliament. Also, the PEOPLE can voice what we do and do not like, not just the government figures who decide how much money gets put in next year.
People aren't forced to watch the BBC. Yes, they still pay for it, but if the ratings fall enough then there would be a review into the funding process. It's why the BBC has to remain as impartial as possible, not *not* piss off segments of the population.
To pretend as though BBC has some holy protection from bias and undue influence is to just have a ridiculously closed mind. What a news organization reports, and how they report it, are directly influenced by who signs their paychecks. If it's Pepsi, then they'll probably downplay negative stories about Pepsi. If it's Parliament, they're probably going to shy away from certain issues, or put others up front and in bolder type. Otherwise, they know full well the political wheels turning the whole operation could just as easily grind them under foot.
As I said, some bias does exist, it's almost inevitable. However they do have a charter and thus a legal obligation to remain as objective as possible.
It's why there's no Glenn Beck on the BBC
Maybe, just maybe, no one in the BBC offices makes any money from entertainment-oriented shows ever at all. But the artists who create the shows certainly hope to, I'd bet. And the BBC works with a limited budget (as defined by the fees, as prescribed by law)... so maybe some of the artists wonder, "Hey, I wonder if I could make more money in a more privatized distribution setting?" and maybe some others even wonder, "Hey, could I do an even better job, with more set pieces and special effects and better equipment... if I tried this idea out somewhere I could get a bit more money from the producers?"
As was pointed out, the BBC has the largest funding of any (iirc) British television station. It also puts a lot of effort into bringing amateur works (whether it be films, sketch shows, plays etc) to the public fore, as well as some fantastic documentaries (as has been said, they've declined lately, but just look at the things involving David Attenborough - they were truly top-class).
They do get extra revenue from selling shows to other stations - however these shows are the original British format, and never altered to appeal to a wider audience. Hell, Top Gear is popular internationally, and the BBC gets a shed-load of money as the channel Dave has it on a practically daily basis.
Finally, the BBC is a non-profit organisation (iirc). So the vast majority of the money the company earns goes back into programs, so the quality of many of the things shown is generally quite high (bar those amateur works). Obviously some revenue is deducted to pay for the staff and running of the station. It's why there's such a stink about the amount of money the Director-General and other Executives earn, given the whole chartered duty of the BBC to the British public.
So, all we're getting at here? Enough with this "evil America" bullshit. We don't go chasing shows nearly as often as people chase us down with them. People all over the world are itching for their own share of the American "entertainment dollar," and they're throwing ideas at it all the time. So quit blaming us for "stealing" your crap when really it might be that you need to complain to your OWN people for "prostituting" out their own ideas for a quick buck in another land.
No one is being anti-American. They're just trying to inform you on just how bloody wrong you were about the way the BBC works.
