Guess we just disagree on the value of having a public broadcaster then.
I suppose it's easy to take it for granted when we live in one of the more open societies in the world, with fairly strong press freedom and little/no government interference.
Contrast with countries that aren't in this position (there are many, Russia and China are two obvious ones) and the benefits of having an unbiased state broadcaster are clear.
Also compare to Western countries with fairly weak public broadcasters, e.g. the USA. The most watched news channel here is the BBC news. There it's FOX News, which a
poll found was 'the most ideological channel in America'. The point of this it seems to me is unless you have respected and trustworthy news then people are going to turn en masse to whichever 'news' suits them best ideologically (I know the same thing is true here with commercial news e.g. Sky, and the red tops, but it's got to be worse there in the absence of a BBC-like option).
The public broadcaster in the USA (PBS) runs on 'pledges' (sponsorship basically) which pop up before, after, and during programmes. In 2011 they also said they'd be switching to
advertising during programmes (but I'm not sure how widely this was rolled out). Needless to say this was unpopular, but it mirrors the direction some people (e.g. edscdk in the post above) think we should go, and it's not pretty.
/ramble