> But the BBC is a de facto government agency — an agency for which all Britons who own televisions are forced by statute to pay — and, as a result, the material that it is modifying is effectively publicly owned.
This is a massive simplification which somewhat undermines the overall article. The government does not automatically own or have the copyright of the material broadcast by the BBC, definitely not in the strict IP sense. The BBC is a 'public corporation': neither a private corporation nor a government department. Furthermore, it generates revenue independently of the license fee, e.g. from sale of content overseas (and advertising on its .com site, as opposed to the .co.uk site we see in the UK).
I'm not saying that the BBC is right or wrong to modify it's historic content, just that the argument that the content is publicly owned is flawed.
I don't care what the technical status of the BBC is. It is publicly funded and thus the public has an interest in ensuring history is not being rewritten.
It is not "publicaly funded" in the same way that the roads or NHS are. I didn't pay a penny to the BBC the entire time I lived in the country because I never had a television. I still paid for the roads though, despite not having a car (yes, everyone actually pays for the roads, not just motorists).
So while I agree they shouldn't be doing this, I wouldn't use the "publically funded" argument. It muddies the waters and makes rebuke easier.
I would absolutely use the "publicly funded" argument, because the public was forced to pay for BBC productions if they had a Television (a device for viewing them).
When much of this content was made, there were not even VHS tapes or streaming sticks, meaning the only thing a television would have been used for was the BBC. And you can't argue that it was not compulsory - BBC ran scare campaigns for decades about their "TV Detector vans" to fine people who didn't pay.
To me, the method might be different, but that doesn't change the publicly funded status.
I don't care if it wasn't funded the same way as roads. It was still publicly funded, just in a different way. I believe that anything that had compulsory public money going into it should be properly archived, be it film, or software, or old documents.
For the purpose of this article, though, they are "intact" in the sense that the archives themselves are not being "censored", right? Only broadcast repeats from the archives (which remain untouched and, for want of a better word, intact.)
From now on, at least, they should be. Storage is relatively cheap and the shows can be monetized in other ways to help fund new productions.
What would not be acceptable would be to delete original content that has already been created because it's unsuitable for modern sensitivities. The best approach could be to offer the adaptation and have an option to watch the potentially upsetting content. I think broadcasting content that, for instance, promotes racism, homophobia, or misogyny, violates the BBC's mandate "to act in the public interest". OTOH, pretending it never existed also goes against that mandate.
> I don't care if it wasn't funded the same way as roads. It was still publicly funded, just in a different way. I believe that anything that had compulsory public money going into it should be properly archived
There is no compulsory public money going into the BBC, as evidenced by the fact that I was not required to pay a single penny to the BBC for the 36 years I lived in the UK.
This is putting aside the argument that were it to be publicly funded, it must be properly archived. I don't know where that entitlement comes from.
> yes, everyone actually pays for the roads, not just motorists
That's because everyone benefits from roads, not just motorists. I make this argument constantly in California related gas tax discussions...
The majority of wear and tear on roads is due to large commercial vehicles. Most of the cost and benefit of roads is transportation for the good you buy not the people they move.
And don't cause any wear and tear on the roads - but of course cyclists pay for goods and services that commercial vehicles provide which include fuel taxes and registration and licensing fees in their pricing.
> It is not "publicaly funded" in the same way that the roads or NHS are
The mental gymnastics around funding for the BBC (and other government owned medias like CBC) is really interesting. Ultimately funding comes from the government, no matter what.
It's just that instead of writing them a check, they give them the privilege of collecting a tax (and the government decides how much they can collect). I don't understand why some people try so hard to muddy the water around this to make it sound like these broadcasters are not government sponsored. It's very dishonest.
Note that these pain points could end at any time by simply… making the BBC/CBC private entities that must fund themselves by simply making content that people want to watch. That’s what everyone else is already doing (and if you look at companies like Marvel and Disney, is extremely profitable).
>> (yes, everyone actually pays for the roads, not just motorists).
> Cough fuel duty
Revenue from fuel duty isn't exclusively used to pay for the road system. Same for vehicle excise duty. As with most government spending, road building and maintenance is paid for out of general government funds. Hypothecation is rarely used in the UK tax system.
> I don't care what the technical status of the BBC is. It is publicly funded and thus the public has an interest in ensuring history is not being rewritten.
The organisation has a duty to serve all members of the UK.
Removing language which degrades segments of this audience, is clearly within its remit.
A dogged determinism to 'not rewrite history', is not.
In the US there were Senators who defended the practice of lynching in newspaper pieces. Should we go back and edit historical records to remove this on account of those opinions degrading some segments of the modern audience?
This is a massive simplification which somewhat undermines the overall article. The government does not automatically own or have the copyright of the material broadcast by the BBC, definitely not in the strict IP sense. The BBC is a 'public corporation': neither a private corporation nor a government department. Furthermore, it generates revenue independently of the license fee, e.g. from sale of content overseas (and advertising on its .com site, as opposed to the .co.uk site we see in the UK).
I'm not saying that the BBC is right or wrong to modify it's historic content, just that the argument that the content is publicly owned is flawed.