If you think the BBC is anything like RT you ought to read about the BBCs reporting during the Falklands War.

Britain's transition to becoming more like a British RT happened post Iraq/David Kelly/Hutton Inquiry and even then it happened fairly slowly - it took time to pension off all the good journalists who asked the difficult questions.

The BBC under Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies was fiercely independent and objective though, until they were unceremoniously let go for not towing the party line on Iraq's WMDs.

People are stupid, so you should add links verifying your claims.

Also, noteworthy, is that most people can not remember, or talk about, the fact that certain nations lie to us so they can go to war. They also can't think about the whole actual reasons why what's happening is happening.

Always remember that 99% of all people only parrot what the mass media present to them, with no critical/analytical thought applied whatsoever.

That’s the sort of cynicism RT want you to adopt, yes.

My opinion of the BBC was formed long before RT even existed. One is a government funded state propagandist. The other is RT. RT emulates BBC as do a lot of state propagandists around the world. All RT and other state propagandists like CGTN, al jazeera, etc does is copy the BBC. It's because the BBC is the best at propaganda. It sets the bar that other state propagandists aspire to.

It isn't by accident George Orwell modeled the Ministry of Truth after the BBC. After all he worked as a propagandist for the BBC during ww2.

You truly have to be brainwashed to believe that the BBC is any different from RT. Just gotta tip your hat to the BBC. They do a good job.

> My opinion of the BBC was formed long before RT even existed. One is a government funded state propagandist. The other is RT.

I'm surprised that, having held such a strong opinion about the BBC for such a long time, you are still able to immediately make a factually incorrect statement regarding such common knowledge as where its funding comes from.

RT's funding doesn't come from the government?

The BBC funding is primarily through TV licensing fees, so it's essentially an optional tax.

> The BBC funding is primarily through TV licensing fees, so it's essentially an optional tax.

That's a long-winded and highly convoluted way of saying government funded.

You have to admire the BBC. They've done such a good job brainwashing people that they jump through all kinds of hoops to hide the fact that the BBC is government funded state propaganda. BBC is what RT aspires to be one day.

No, see, that's but one example of how your unwillingness or inability to accept any complexity or nuance gets in the way of thinking.

The TV license system is set up specifically so that the institution is somewhat isolated from day-to-day politics. It's a completely different situation if the PM can decide on a whim to fund you or not, or if there's a difficult-to-change law that sets the fees that you get for a decade in advance

If you insist that everything is the same and all politicians are corrupt and all media are lying then you're just giving away any power you might have. Why would any politician not turn corrupt or leave id you are screaming invectives at them at the top of your lung, completely divorced from their actual work?

That's why RT loves cynicism and tries to amplify exactly that work view: it's a self-fulfilling prophesy.

The license fee is likely to be scrapped in 2027: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-60014514. Alternative funding is almost certainly going to carry significant strings (either from advertisers or more direct control from government officials).

Arguably there has been a multi-decade push to extinguish the institution altogether, or at least to drastically shrink it and simultaneously bring it under more rigid government control. The trend towards official state broadcaster and away from public interest broadcaster has been ongoing for many many years.

I think the BBC is not exactly like RT in degree or in kind, but there is a definite trend towards its kind. It's also interesting to note that some of the official US complaints about RT influence on US public opinion are based on RT platforming legitimate social critics in the US. Dissidents for thee but not for me.

The amount of "whataboutism" and bothsidism when it comes to the comment section of any Western outlet (here included) is pretty wild. I would say this 2 month old account you're replying to is a great example of the typical output of such accounts.

> No, see, that's but one example of how your unwillingness or inability to accept any complexity or nuance gets in the way of thinking.

Or maybe I've heard the "tv license" excuse for many years now. Nothing you wrote is new to me. Surprised you didn't post a link to BBC edited wikipedia article.

> If you insist that everything is the same and all politicians are corrupt and all media are lying then you're just giving away any power you might have.

No. I insist that propaganda is propaganda. I've no problem saying RT is state propaganda because that's exactly what RT is. I've no problem saying that BBC is state propaganda because that's exactly what they are. I've no problem calling putin a corrupt politician. Just like I have no problem calling zelensky or biden or trump a corrupt politician.

What you are saying is my corrupt politician isn't corrupt because he is on my team. My favorite propaganda outlet isn't propaganda because they are on my team. That's the difference between you and me.

> That's why RT loves cynicism and tries to amplify exactly that work view: it's a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Where did I hear that from? Oh that's right, it's the anti-RT propaganda. Funny how that works huh? Funny how propaganda say X and people just repeat it endlessly? You are the one amplifying propaganda you heard not me.

But believe what you want. BBC is a government created and funded state propaganda. This is a historical fact. You can invent all kinds of excuses if it helps you sleep at night. But it doesn't change reality. How crazy is it that only our enemies have propaganda? Only russia, china, north korea, etc have propaganda. We don't have propaganda. Nope. Your comment is proof that we have the best propaganda.

These are insightful and deep thoughts indeed :)

> I've no problem calling putin a corrupt politician. Just like I have no problem calling zelensky or biden or trump a corrupt politician.

Don't forget Pol Pot. These politicians are all the same.

I'm reminded of murderers Oscar Pistorious and Jeffrey Dahmer.

Likewise the terrorism of the French Resistance and Osama Bin Laden.

What a unique and valuable perspective to have. I'm sure you'd agree that such enlightenment is a curse, which is why the more feeble minded of us hide our eyes from these blinding truths.

While I agree on the larger point, this thing struck me.

> Likewise the terrorism of the French Resistance and Osama Bin Laden.

I mean, Robespierre probably killed more people and not exactly for better reasons. Reign of terror was exactly what the name implies.

I believe you are thinking of the French revolution, not resistance. The latter term is generally used to refer to resistance against the Vichy administration.

You are right, I have misread that word.

RT didnt fire the director general for not towing the line on Iraqs WMDs.

Oh I am pretty sure any member of RT would face a much more interesting punishment if they decide to go against their owners will.

For sure, but the principle is the same. Neither is independent.

BBC is made for britons first, RT is for foreigners.