I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Ofcom is the UK's TV broadcast regulator. It is the authority for regulating TV channels.
If the CCP has the right to object, I would expect it to be less defensive when other countries criticise censorship within China. It can't have it both ways.
This is the thing... when the international media complain about censorship in China... they are in fact trying to or intent on changes to the rules in China to allow themselves to be exempt or change of the rules in its entirety... which mean they are trying effect change in the internal system of the PRC to their view point...
In this case the Chinese government made a statement that they will respond and have the right to respond, which they have... you can criticise them if in fact this response involves them insisting on changes to the way OFCOM as the regulating authority, regulates the framework by which broadcaster ownership is restricted... but at this moment they have not... by claiming that they are attempting to effect specific internal change by simply making a statement concerning their right to make a response, you are in fact assigning guilt... basically that is guilty until proven innocent.
You're talking about a future possibility where the BBC becomes like CGTN and starts following editorial direction from the government/ruling party. Call me when that happens - it's not the case now.
No, by the fact that the government, controls funding, appoint the chairman and even have control of the right of the BBC’s very existence, it excerpt influence on the way in which the BBC conduct it’s business... in the internal sense the political pressure of the other parties will keep this in check... but externally, in the case of China for example it would toll the line that the British government wish for, as evident by the way in which it conducts it supposed investigations into various perceived issues involving China and by the way in which it reports what it perceives as issues, where the view point of China is automatically dismissed and any critical voice is amplified... this is also for Russia... Whether the government can affect the BBC directly with regards to it’s daily operation or editorially is irrelevant...
Ofcom's investigation began in 2019. It's unlikely the rules would have changed as recently as that, but even if they did it wouldn't have made any difference because 2019 was not the flashpoint. Even in early 2020 the UK government was hoping for good relations with China after leaving the EU. It was 2020 that was the real decider.
I also expect that the chance of the rules changing in the last 5 years is low, because otherwise the Conservative Party would have tried setting up a TV channel when it was in Opposition until 2010 if it had been allowed.
This is the part I am also unsure about too... I did find however a report by the Secretary of State dated 26-09-2015 about media ownership
Section 4: Preventing undue influence, which suggest such rule didn’t exist before... I do have one suspicion as to why the Conservative party didn’t produce their own tv channel before and that is viewership, or more correctly lack there of, for any new media channel... additionally, if we remember, 2015 was when stories after stories of China militarisation of the SCS came out... and this report just so happened in 2015...
On the assumption that such rules came into effect recently... and the fact that there wasn’t any major outcry in the UK concerning this rule change, would mean that there wasn’t an issue of undue influence in regards to UK broadcasters... the only major affected party would be the Chinese broadcaster as the methodology used in their operations would be directly in conflict with said rule... If the investigation begun in 2019 it is reasonable to assume that the US’s decision to officially list all Chinese state media as propaganda would have influence the decision for the investigation in the first place, which in turn would mean it was a decision of political motivation
If, on the contrary, on assumption that such restrictions were in place far earlier, then such investigation should have been conducted far earlier, if the principal behind the rule is followed, rather than specifically in 2019, where the relationship of China and the west becoming more and more tension filled, also making the decision one of political motivation...
Again, see my previous comments about separation of powers. Even if some UK politicians said that Chinese state own media was a propaganda arm of the CCP, that is irrelevant to Ofcom's job. It acts independently. Rule of law means that Ofcom has to apply its regulations irrespective of political pressure. Russia Today tried to challenge Ofcom's recent-ish fine in the courts but lost. If CGTN/CCTV-9 had its licence revoked or blocked decades ago just because of what politicians were saying, it could have sought legal redress and would have won if Ofcom had no evidence to back up its position.
I've tried to demonstrate how Ofcom has been acting fairly and that CGTN was simply not following the rules. Perhaps that's because you see UK politics through the prism of how things work in China, where the government/CCP says something and the regulators/media jump to it. I understand if that's the case but it simply isn't how the UK works with respect to broadcast regulation.
If you refuse to accept the explanations I've given I don't know what more I can say.
Look if the rules were changed and they breached it... then fair enough... but it’s my contention that
1, if the changes are recently then they are politically motivated. As the major affected party has no recourse due to inherent organisational as well as governmental structure, in effect the rule change was targeted at the Chinese.
2, if the rule has long been enforced, then the timing of said investigation is political motivated. As, if by the principal of fairness, such an investigation would have long been conducted as those critical facts concerning the affected party would have been known since the inception of the rule... and in fact since the inception of the affected organisation...
3, issuing a statement of response is not and cannot be constituted as affecting internal affairs as no actions to this effect has been made...
