We already control all media, even Sky to a degree, but we do it via Parliament, legislation and regulation and one of the tenants is fair, accurate reporting.
You could stick all terrestrial channels in one building and purality wouldn't be admonished. I don't see why they can't, the TV licence is an outdated bollocks system of stealth regulation and no terrestrial setup needs it with the commercial enterprises they run.
Shrink the licence fee, apply it to all fairly let them manage the market the way they choose and for the BBC especially take away the safety blanket of guaranteed cash that just goes on uber wages.
They argue a competitive industry....bollocks they aren't in one. They are state funded therefore should have caps. You don't need to keep talent and pay them £500K or £1mil a year. Did the BBC lose out when Ross moved on for cash, no they found Norton - just as successful.
Do BBC News anchors need £650k a year, no, somebody on £100k whose capable of speaking can read the same autocue.
If the BBC wants to be public funded entirely and we all give a nod to private commercial cash and their after dinner speaking arrangements, they earn £100k max and if they don't like it, fuck off and enter the market.
The only difference sticking them in the same building and saving cash would make is the greedy fuckers wouldn't have to walk as far to hock their services.
The UK would do well to remember that for all the inefficiency faults of public owned companies - privitisation is a con. The Railways, the taxpayer pays as a taxpayer and then as a consumer anyway.
We pay twice for the privilege of spotty idiots taking bonuses and a dividend and have less control over price hikes.
It's a farce.
