The BBC isn't comparable to NPR. The Chairman of the BBC is appointed by the UK's King-in-Council, on the advice of the Secretary of State. Similarly, RAI is owned by the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance; RTVE is state owned. Not sure on RTP and ARD; they sound more NPR-ish from their Wikipedias, although ARD appears to be paid for by a mandatory license fee like the BBC is.
That is a bit my point. The details differ and the naming differs but I'd argue that by and large and in the broad public perception there are three categories: Privately-owned commercial, state controlled and a third category that is really neither. Regardless of the details and legalities people know it when they see it, so an own label
would be justified.
BBC clearly meets certain definitions of "state controlled" and NPR does not meet any. BBC itself cannot sack its chairman. Only the government can appoint and remove them.
> BBC clearly meets certain definitions of "state controlled".
I disagree with that. Every media is under pressure of influencing forces and sometimes mistakes are made, but throwing out the baby with the bath water and classifying the BBC as "state controlled" is clearly unjustified.
There is significant controversy on the current one , how his appointment came about and links to then PM Boris Johnson.
Also recent controversy over Match of the day program presenter Gary Lineker on twitter(!) comparing government language on immigration to the ones used by Nazis and his suspension following that .
Given all this it is fair to say they are government controlled
