TheLady far be it from me to accuse someone I don't know much about of bias, but I get the impression that if the situation had been reversed, and you had seen and heard a strongly pro-Israel, anti-Palestine report on the BBC, you would not have produced such a vitriolic writeup. However be that as it may, the fact remains that the BBC occupies a unique status in the world of news reporting. It is not funded by private capital so has no proprietor to kowtow to. It does not carry advertisements so never needs to keep its advertisers sweet. It isn't funded exclusively by the Government so doesn't need to bow down to the current political orthodoxy of whichever party is currently in power over at Westminster. It's funded by every person in the UK who owns a radio or television set, through a compulsory taxation system (the TV licence).

So what's the implication of all this? Well, with no single body or organisation controlling its money the BBC (theoretically at least) has the freedom to report the complete truth. In reality the very nature of journalism and editors will mean that there is always a political choice made as to what appears on the BBC News and what doesn't; whether there is political bias is another question. However assuming that TheLady is correct, you have to ask yourself why. What purpose would be gained by the BBC in attacking Israel in such a way: is Greg Dyke (current controller of the BBC) a closet Palestinian nationalist? Are the journalists hoping to get out into western Jerusalem and start shooting at Israeli troops? I think it's unlikely.

I would like to suggest that if the BBC is reporting things from a different angle to most of the western media it is not an indication of bias on the part of the BBC, but rather an indication that much of the rest of the media feels a need to justify US foreign policy in the Middle East, whereas the BBC can try to offer just a glimpse of things from another point of view.