> Margret Thatcher wasn’t a “faction of the British Government”. She was Prime Minister for 11 years.
Fair enough, faction of British politics. She didn't have the power to shut down the BBC, so she obviously didn't represent the consensus position. Again, the argument seems like it would be that the BBC isn't propaganda because the British PM is relatively weak. That doesn't hold together. Besides, Putin isn't the PM of Russia, Wikipedia tells me that is Mikhail Mishustin.
> But more broadly, you’re arguing at a level of abstraction that rises above actually looking at the content produced by the BBC in comparison to the content produced by RT. You only have to watch each for 15 minutes to see the very clear difference.
So if RT was better written then it wouldn't be propaganda? Because the fact that the BBC has better journalists and targets the middle and upper class in style doesn't particularly mean much except they're better at their jobs than the RT people. You're mistaking propaganda for low quality writing with that one. Good propaganda relies on truth and being mostly credible (see also - the model pioneered by the BBC with enormous success).
> You asked “If [the BBC] isn't pushing a British viewpoint, wouldn't it be incumbent on the British government to shut it down?” That clearly suggests that the government of the day could defund the BBC if it displeased them.
"displeased" is a bit vague but yes if there was a consensus in the Houses of Lords and Commons that the BBC wasn't advancing the interests of Britain I imagine it'd not last long. The parliament is quite powerful when it unites on a question of policy. That doesn't mean a PM can just snap their fingers and the BBC disappears, it'd be a long process.
The BBC certainly serves the interests of Britain, but it does so precisely because it is not merely a state propaganda service. You mention the limits on the PM's power. More generally, there are reasonably effective democratic norms and institutions that prevent the BBC's independence from being subverted by the government. Independent journalism isn't unbiased or uncolored by its political environment, but it's distinct from propaganda.
If you want to say that the BBC is British propaganda just because the journalists are British and present a British point of view (rather than, say, a Surinamese point of view), then ok, but I don't think that's a very interesting point. By that definition, every American news service is American propaganda.
Some of your other points here are transparently not serious, such as the suggestion that I can't compare the British PM to the Russian President because the latter has a different title.
> If you want to say that the BBC is British propaganda just because the journalists are British and present a British point of view (rather than, say, a Surinamese point of view), then ok, but I don't think that's a very interesting point.
So if you were to focus in on RT, are you of the opinion that it isn't Russians pushing mainstream Russian viewpoints? That is the major complaint most people have - it is representing an unabashed Russian perspective and choosing issues that powerful Russians think are important.
The issue with the BBC is it is government funding, with historic links to British intelligence vetting to make sure that the journalists had appropriate views and a long history of running British propaganda globally with no obvious reason as to why they'd stop. The UK is supporting a particular bias and pushing it out for global broadcasting - that is the essence of propaganda. Plus as a comment pointed out further upthread, according to Wikipedia their Charter links them to objectives set out by the Foreign Secretary. This is more or less where RT will be sitting - there isn't much else they can do.
If I were to somehow end up running RT as their head of propaganda, I'd do two things: first, learn to speak Russian. Second, sit all the managers down and use my new language skills to call them idiots and tell them that standards were going up and they need to do things more like the BBC. No compromising factual accuracy and there's going to be high quality articles out on every topic from a staunchly Russian perspective. That's how competent people run their propaganda missions. The real mistake RT has been making for years (hilariously on stereotype for the Russians) is it is far too direct and straightforward about executing its mission. It'd be more effective if they were a few notches more subtle - the BBC sits at a much neater optimum.
> By that definition, every American news service is American propaganda.
A lot of them are. One of the interesting things about the so-called Twitter Files was how quickly Twitter was integrated into US state propaganda, presumably similar linkages are kept with other US media companies.
But I wouldn't say that all US media outlets are US State propaganda. Many of them are independent propaganda for their own reasons, with independent funding and goals.