> The publicly funded channel It's not "publicly funded". It's funded by licence-payers. And it's hardly one channel. > It can also be unbiased Nonsense. E.g

> The publicly funded channel It's not "publicly funded". It's funded by licence-payers. And it's hardly one channel. > It can also be unbiased Nonsense. E.g. Any mention of "HAMAS" on the BBC is routinely accompanied by the reminder that HAMAS is a proscribed organisation in the UK and many other places. I used to rely on BBC news, not because it was unbiased, but because their reporting was better (they used to have a large network of international correspondents). But their news staff has been cut to the bone, and job-title inflation means that all their correspondents are now referred to as "editor". I now get my TV news from ITV/CH4. The notion that the BBC forces up standards for the "independent" channels is manifestly untrue.