This behemoth with its global reach was a quasi-independent, publicly funded, news and broadcasting organization. Parliament had the power to call public hearings to question BBC board members and senior management should the need arise, while the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—a member of the prime minister’s cabinet—had to approve new BBC services. ^[6] But most of its business came under the oversight of a board of governors. The 12 governors were appointed on merit by the incumbent government for a period of four years each (with the possibility of reappointment) on a rotating basis. ^[7] Parliament renewed the BBC’s charter every 10 years; it was next up for renewal in 2006.

The chairman in 2003 was Gavyn Davies , whom an independent panel had selected as chairman in October 2001. Davies had been a former economic adviser to the British government, and a managing director of Goldman Sachs. He was also an acknowledged supporter of the ruling Labour Party. At the time of his appointment, the BBC had to defend itself against Tory Party charges of bias because of Davies’ close friendships with Prime Minister Blair and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. ^[8] Other board members came from across the British isles and included individuals of varying experience and expertise. In 2003, for example, the board included several prominent business executives; a theatre, film, and television director and writer; a lawyer and vice-chancellor of Oxford University; a former diplomat; and an historian/broadcaster. Unlike corporate boards, the BBC’s board was not responsible to shareholders but to the public interest. It set strategy for the organization, safeguarded its editorial independence, ensured compliance with laws, and held it accountable for the responsible use of taxpayer money. The board met once a month.

The Board of Governors in turn appointed the director-general, the organization's chief executive and editor-in-chief. The director-general in 2003 was Greg Dyke . Dyke took over in January 2000 from John Birt. Like Davies, Dyke was known to be a Labour Party supporter; from 1995-2000, he had donated a total of £55,000 (ca. $82,000) to the party. ^[9]

Dyke headed an executive board , which managed the corporation’s day-to-day operations. The other executive board members were the directors of the BBC’s 16 divisions, appointed by the director-general in consultation with the governors. ^[10] Among its members were Richard Sambrook , who in 2003 ran the news operation; Mark Byford , another member of the leadership team, was director of the BBC’s international division, including the World Service, BBC World Television and the international online news.

Funding. BBC funding came from a license fee—its level set by parliament—levied against each UK household that owned a television set. In 2002-03, it received £2.66 billion ($4.5 billion) in license fee income. The amount of the license fee, as well as the principle of public support for the BBC, was reexamined at regular intervals. ^[11]

To justify its public funding, the BBC was expected to adhere to the highest standards of journalism and to serve, first and foremost, the public. This requirement was not straightforward, as “the public” comprised numerous constituencies—including the government of the day. The BBC, says Sambrook, “has to be politically sensitive, and you have to court the political constituencies to make sure they’re with you, as any publicly funded broadcaster does, without compromising your independence.” ^[12] He adds:

In the end, politicians decide our funding, they decide our charter, they decide our remit. If you go around saying we’re going to ignore you, we don’t care what you say and you don’t matter, it’s going to come home to roost sooner or later.

Independence. Across the board, however, British taxpayers, citizens, and public figures recognized editorial independence as the BBC’s most precious attribute. Its charter explicitly required the BBC to operate independently of both political and commercial influence. Inevitably, this meant regular conflicts with successive governments. “Our job is to hold government to account to some extent,” comments Sambrook. “So whoever is in office is going to hate” the BBC.

The history books were full of examples. In 1926, then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill was furious that the BBC conducted interviews with leaders of a General Strike. In 1932, the government of the day objected when the BBC wanted to broadcast an interview with a German WWI U-boat captain, and during WWII the government chided the BBC for reporting British losses before the Germans did. The BBC clashed with governments—both Conservative and Labour—in 1956, over Suez; over Rhodesia coverage in the 1960s; in the 1980s over reports of the Falklands War, and the bombing of Libya from British bases; and in 1999 when Britain bombed Kosovo and Belgrade as part of NATO. The problem, as framed by the London Independent , was that “each government starts off in a love-in with the media and ends up blaming it for everything that is going wrong. The BBC gets it in the neck because... ministers always feel that the Corporation’s primary task is to be a ‘neutral’—i.e. uncritical—conduit of government information.” ^[13]

As of February 2003 , however, the BBC was feeling confident about its news coverage, its service to viewers and its public approval ratings. While an organization this large had numerous signature programs, among its domestic radio offerings one show was considered a must-listen by policymakers, news organizations, and involved citizens: Radio Four’s Today program.