Way to fall-off from being the one source of news everyone in "Anglo" countries in the Third-World used to turn to (and love and respect... however biased the news may have been).
Edit: am trying to access from US, I see a paywall. Good to hear from comments that other countries don't see a paywall.
The BBC will regularly criticise the government, especially when it's a Labour government.
Not paying the Licence Fee is a criminal offence.
None of these make the BBC "state media."
> UK Government cannot determine its agenda or directly influence its funding.
> The BBC will regularly criticise the government
The funding is set for a 10 year cycle, beyond the scope of any individual government specifically to protect the BBC from editorial interference by the government. That’s why it’s a publicly funded broadcaster, not “state media.”
The onus is now on you and the OP to prove your claim that the BBC is state media.
> State media are typically understood as media outlets that are owned, operated, or significantly influenced by the government.
Which part of this definition is lacking, in your opinion? Which part of the UNESCO report do you think is incorrect? My source: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380618.locale=en
Only the US traffic has a paywall, there's none if you visit it from somewhere else. Understandable to charge people who don't pay for it with their taxes in my opinion, especially if you delivery videos and other expensive content for free without ads.
I would have expected Britain to realize this and continue funding it.
From: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2vgkn7w10o
The other countries most likely don't make up such a big chunk of visits / costs.
FWIW: There's many news sources in the US (Usually regional news papers etc.) that just throw a forbidden or 402 status code right away at anyone not using a US IP.