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.
While the BBC might well be part of the British *establishment*, it does have independence from the government. We could argue all day about funding sources and whether the licence fee is a tax. From outside the UK the views it presents do appear to coincide with those of the government on many issues. In your comments you mention attitudes to former colonies. The mainstream view of Britain's colonial past is very rosy; even many figures on the left seem to regret the loss of the empire, a veiw that's almost universal on the right (including among the current government, whose representatives do get quite a lot of airtime). Similar arguments apply to Israel/Palestine, where other parts of the traditional British media are much more pro-Israel.

Within the UK the BBC is often perceived as left-wing by Tories and the right-wing press, especially so since the Brexit vote. As the Tories are in government that means a significant perception within the UK of *anti*-government bias. Conversely the left of the Labour party feel pretty hard-done-by and accuse the BBC of unfair treatment. They are required to tread a fine line and by drawing the ire of both sides must be getting it right much of the time.