Replies

With the BBC you have to start with the premise that the best source of information is the government... People who believe that are doomed from the start . . . And obviously the British are proud of their government run BBC so it starts with them . . .

Quite.
But how different is it here in the US, where people listen to National Public Radio and think that they are being told the whole truth?
The reality is that here we talk the king's english, but the "king" is Big Journalism and its version of english is a form of Newspeak. In that language, journalists are objective journalists - meaning that they toe the comfortable establishment line that second guessing is legitimate because actual performance "in the arena" is in no way superior to journalism's criticism thereof.
In that language those who toe the line that journalists' criticism is the important thing, but who themselves are not (presently) employed as journalists, are good guys who are called "liberals," or "progressives," or "moderates." They can have any label they want, except "objective," which is reserved to working journalists and not just those (such as Walter Cronkite) whose attitudes are indistinguishable from those of working journalists.
In that language those who oppose the line that journalists' criticism is more important than performance and that second guessing is legitimate are objects of calumny. The only labels applicable to them are negative, such as "right wing," or "extreme," or - even though they prefer innovators to innovation-inhibiting bureaucrats - "conservative."
Confessions of a BBC liberal
[The BBC has finally come clean about its bias,
says a former....]
TimesOnLine