Question: The [**British** Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC) is, as far as I know, a fully government-subsidized British TV channel. Does that not make it an arm of the British government? While some may point to its independence, the same is claimed for the US judiciary system. Yet no one claims that its independence makes the US judiciary something other than a branch of the government. The BBC is an entity which was founded by the British government, which is funded by the British government, and which at times (most notably during WWII) was a propaganda arm of the government.

Since the Russian channel [RT (formerly "*Russia Today*")](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)) was recently asked to register as a foreign agent, because it is owned by the Russian government, shouldn't the same be requested of the BBC? Is there any distinction? 

While it may be tempting to point to the fact that Russia is at odds (to put it mildly) with the US and GB is an ally, I don't think that British agents (of other branches of the GB government) are excused from registering as foreign agents. So what's different about BBC?

Answer: 
Because FARA is a vague written law that can be used to target particular individuals/entities that the current US government does not like. 

For example from Wikipedia, [United States v. Franklin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Franklin):

> 
> The 2005 case of United States v. Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman
>  against United States Department of Defense employee Larry Franklin
>  and American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy director Steven
>  Rosen and AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman[41][42] raised the
>  possibility that AIPAC would come under greater scrutiny by the
>  Department of Justice. While Franklin pleaded guilty to passing
>  government secrets to Rosen and Weissman, as well as to an Israeli
>  government official,[43][44] the cases against Rosen and Weissman were
>  dismissed and no actions against AIPAC were instituted.[40]
> 
> 
> 

So it is a matter of a poorly written law that makes "everybody" guilty but allows the government to pick when to enforce it.

Unfortunately this is considered "conspiracy" but it is true in multiple areas some of which are not related to Russia. For example recently there was a discussion if Jeff Sessions will start enforcing federal laws regarding Marijuana(Obama administration decided not to enforce a certain law and now Sessions plans to end that practice). In other words law did not change, but different administrations choose to ignore it or not ignore it.
The majority of the BBC is NOT government funded. It is important to make this distinction.

The bulk of the BBC's domestic programming is funded by the TV licence. This is not a tax, but it is an enforceable charge levied on households consuming broadcast TV.

The majority of the BBC's international programming is not funded by the licence fee, but is funded by commercial revenues (advertising etc.).

However, the BBC World Service IS directly funded by the Foreign Office (UK government department).

There are many controversies around the way the BBC is funded (is the license fee a "tax"/how can you "sell" programmes that are made with licence fee funding/where does the World Service draw the line between "international development" and "propaganda" etc etc), but it is fundamentally NOT an organ of the state.

"Auntie" has a unique relationship with the UK public. Politically, the left think it is too conservative and the right think it is too liberal. Since nobody is happy, BBC News (which is required to be impartial) must be getting the balance about right. Yet when there is an event of national importance - people will choose to watch the BBC's coverage of it.

P.S. Channel 4 IS government owned, but commercially funded.