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 BBC is a collection of entities, some of which are funded by the British government, some of which are not.

The BBC's news output which is available outside of the UK is run by BBC Global News, Ltd. This company is not funded in any way by the UK government or by the license fee that is paid by UK residents, but strictly [by advertising and subscription revenues](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-12957296). It is because of this lack of funding from the UK government, as well as the editorial independence that you mentioned earlier, that means the BBC would not be covered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

As for the BBC's entertainment programming (such as what you'll find on BBC Americas), while much of the content is part-funded by the UK license fee (because we enjoy it in the UK as well), it's very difficult to argue that there is any political activity involved, so that would also not be covered under FARA.
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.