https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/oct/22/how...
I grew up watching BBC Northern Ireland and also the Irish equivalent of the BBC, RTE and witnessed at least two different versions of reality every evening. Many competing interests were involved and many on all sides were genuinely acting in good faith within their respective systems.
As a point of contrast, I feel like US mainstream news is even more beholden to special interests, including that of the government, than either the BBC or RTE ever were. So being nominally free of state control doesn’t mean a whole lot in reality it seems to me.
For a while as a minister Boris Johnson was paid more by the Times than his ministerial salary. Johnson gave Lebedev a peerage for using his papers, the Evening Standard and the Independent, to promote him. One of the few papers still defending him in his half-resigned state is the Daily Mail. The press have very much been calling the shots until now.
"Official state media" is more correct
Sadly, this ideal of the Westminster system has been under attack for the last decade or two. Secrecy has been broadly imposed on the public service and non-partisan department heads are sacked and replaced with political lackeys. The ideal isn't dead though. There are people in the public service who are trying to keep it non-partisan, and those efforts should be supported rather than it all being written off as a hopeless case.
[1] https://sef.psc.nsw.gov.au/nsw-government-context/the-westmi...
Westminster type systems are arguably hybrid oligarchies. Australia is a good example - look how it continues to function in largely the same way, on largely the same trajectory, despite having 5 prime ministers in the last 10 years.
Your original comment had truth to it but bundling the BBC in undermined that, however you define it here.
"Public Service" is plainly a positive term though. It lends an air of altruism. Not particularly interested in what nomenclature is standard (according to who? 7 etc etc).
I mention "foreign owned" twice because I don't think those that don't have a stake in our country should have so much influence on how it is run and definitely shouldn't be trying to stir up non-existent trouble with our allies.
Personally I'm OK with a public service broadcaster that's charged with being politically neutral.
If that's referring to the case I think it's referring to, I'm very ok with that. There's no such thing as ironic racism.
TV is a dying medium, is it not? I'd say this problem of sensationalist TV news solves itself within a decade.
For mis-selling entertainment, opinion and a poorly written soap opera as the "facts" or even "news".
But most Brits will say all of the above is fine, even necessary. It's eerie how similar these conversations are to ones I've had with people from countries generally considered authoritarian in the west.
The general conclusion I draw is that people will justify and put up with a fair amount of authoritarianism if they feel it targets the right people, or maintains the kind of society they want to live in. If you're a "good citizen" and it doesn't effect you it's hard to be principled if it's mainly targeting people you consider dregs.
EDIT: changed "State run media" to "Official state media" per conversation below..