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: 
The relevant US law is the [Foreign Agents Registration Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act), which covers agents who act "at the order, request, or under the direction or control" of a foreign power.

Therefore, institutional and editorial independence is the key.

If the UK Prime Minister tells (say) an employee of MI6 or the Foreign Office to do something, that person is required to either do it or resign.

This is [not so for the BBC](http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/governance_framework.html). Even [during the Second World War](http://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/research/general/censorship-propaganda), the BBC maintained its editorial independence; this was a deliberate policy, as it was believed the BBC would be more trusted if it was seen to be independent rather than a direct mouthpiece for government.

Instead of comparing the BBC to agencies under direct government control, a better analogy would be a university. British universities receive most of their funding from central government; but the Prime Minister is unable to sack university professors at will, and the mere fact of being a professor at (say) Oxford University does not make a person an agent of the British government in any meaningful sense.

Of course, both the BBC and Oxford University are part of the British establishment, and for cultural reasons will tend to reflect the establishment consensus; but that is a different matter from being agencies under the control of the government of the day.
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.