The beauty of state-funded news, no?
Until it steps on the state's toes.
I doubt funding can ever be divorced from control, even if it is indirect. The BBC knows where its next meal comes from.
That said, the GP does have a point. The only thing preventing the possibility of closed-door deals going on between the BBC and political parties is good faith. Ergo, if it's not already happening or hasn't already happened, which is unlikely, there's no reason it can't happen in future.
Note: despite Australia's high exposure to UK content, I don't know much about the British media landscape. I haven't read the BBC's charter (nor the ABC's, for that matter).
Edit:
It's a tradeoff of different goals. On one hand, you get a news agency which can focus on news - not entertainment as would be dictated by a comittment to profit. On the other hand, that news agency is more susceptible to decisions by government. Consider: what determined the BBC's spending cuts?
I think publicly-owned news organisations are a great idea. The ABC, BBC, and NPR usually provide great news coverage. They have no need to sensationalize content, and that services the public to no end.
Political parties could equally make backroom deals with private media companies as well. It would also be considerably less risky, because they wouldn't have to violate the Royal Charter.
The problem with backroom deals concerning the license fee is that they have to be remain secret, yet affect how the news is reported without drawing suspicion. Any control would have to be very subtle.
An government inquiry into the BBC's reporting would be even worse, as it would be a clear violation of the BBC's independence.
That's why you don't reduce it right away. You threaten to reduce it if they're impolitic enough to pursue certain courses. You make this fairly clear to them. The actual decisions come from the BBC's own leadership, acting on such knowledge.
> An government inquiry into the BBC's reporting would be even worse, as it would be a clear violation of the BBC's independence.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. The only independence the BBC can have under its funding model is if it decided to risk going downhill and no longer being able to do the good things it's doing now. A reduction in license fees would accomplish that, meaning if you can wave that stick around the BBC will waive its independence and allow investigations.
And the next day there's a headlining report on government corruption.
I'm not quite seeing how the government can threaten the BBC, when they have so much to lose if those threats become public.