I think this post says more about your own biases than the BBC. For example the government made a big deal about "reaching" 100,000 tests in a day by counting

I think this post says more about your own biases than the BBC. For example the government made a big deal about "reaching" 100,000 tests in a day by counting kits mailed out to people as completed tests (it would be just easy to criticise the BBC news coverage for parroting the government's claim that they'd hit it in the headlines). The government had set that as a target with a specific date, and when it was clear they were unlikely to hit it, ministers started talking about capacity. A number of media outlets correctly pointed out this wasn't the original target, Germany had that "capacity" for a month and was now actually processing that many tests. But it's not the fault of the BBC or any other media organization that the UK didn't actually carry out 100k tests and so government ministers flipped to talking about capacity and other indicators to fudge the issue in the public's mind. Similarly there is a school of thought that state broadcasters should only cover the upsides of government decisions (even when the downsides are so clear the government changes tack) and shouldn't give any of the government's critics any publicity, but it's a school of thought mostly associated with authoritarian states. Being criticised from all sides - regardless of what the policy is - is an occupational hazard of being a government where public debate isn't censored or controlled by them.