Because we need to know what is going on in the world, whether its profitable or not.

News should not be entertainment. News should not be for profit.

> News should not be entertainment. News should not be for profit.

But why?

If "news" isn't profitable or entertaining (and FWIW I agree those shouldn't be preconditions for quality news), then it will have to be subsidized by someone. Who will do that? What is their reason for putting up that money? And - most importantly - who decides whether the end product is "good enough", and what changes can they demand for the subsidy to continue?

I think its a fair question and wanted to respond. I don't think people should just downvote.

There are a lot of things that we as a society have decided we need, and that everybody should contribute to paying for whether we like it or not.

We pay police salaries to try and prevent crime. We all pay to have waste collected regularly.

But lets be clear, we are not talking all that much money. Australia's ABC runs on about 7c a day per taxpayer. I would happily pay 10 times that.

I think the question of what is "good enough" and how the organization should be run, and how independent it is, are all good questions and something we should all have a say in.

> Democracy should not be entertainment. Democracy should not be for profit.

But why?

If "democracy" isn't profitable or entertaining (and FWIW I agree those shouldn't be preconditions for quality democracy), then it will have to be subsidized by someone. Who will do that? What is their reason for putting up that money? And - most importantly - who decides whether the end product is "good enough", and what changes can they demand for the subsidy to continue?

You’re being downvoted but I think this is a fair question. I don’t accept this assertion as true at face value. Presumably the BBC, as with any other government-controlled revenue source, acts as some sort of patronage mechanism, and a lot of these roles exist as a jobs program rather than something the taxpayers actually extract a benefit from.

> The BBC, as with any other government-controlled revenue source

Point of fact, the BBC was not intended to be "government-controlled", and it is not a "revenue source" for the UK government.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-BBC-the-state-owned-and-state-c...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#

“Revenue source” meaning “source of revenue for patronage programs”, not that it makes money for the UK Govt.

The BBC is government-controlled in that its money is collected by the government, which can punish people for not paying, and organizations know where their funds are coming from and attempt to prevent those funds from being stopped.

>The BBC is government-controlled in that its money is collected by the government

No, the licence fee is collected by the BBC, by law.

Section 365(2) of the Communications Act 2003:

>Sums which a person is liable to pay by virtue of regulations under subsection (1) must be paid to the BBC and are to be recoverable by them accordingly.

> No, the licence fee is collected by the BBC, by law.

And the government punishes you if you don't pay.

I declined to make a distinction without a difference.

Reread. I used the word "intended" deliberately. There are many indirect mechanisms, that are open to abuse. You described one. It's not the same though as direct control.