This is not a valid argument for the BBC being an objective broadcasting organisation. One side can rightfully claim bias and then the other side can over-sensitively claim bias the other way because the BBC isn't 100% presenting it's view. The BBC could still be much more biased towards one side.
I'm not arguing they are perfectly objective evidenced by complaints from both sides. I'm arguing that they're not "government funded state propaganda" as GP claims, who would be expected to be pretty consistent in support of said government regardless of their views. :)
Overall, over the decades, I find the Beeb make a reasonable fist of being unbiased. With the occasional ludicrous attempt to balance by allowing a fringe a voice. Some instances of which have been apologised for.
When an opposition gets into power they still complain, no matter who Paxman or Humphries has had a pop at lately. I think any preferences of the types of stories they run are a reflection of the times, and perhaps the sort of people who choose to go into the media rather than any overt bias. Thus for some they are viewed as biased centrist or centre left in always seeking balance.
I wouldn't say that that allowing fringe voices has been occasional. Nigel Farage has had a very disproportionate number of appearances on Question Time alone.
More recently the BBC allowed Arron Banks to defend himself publicly against legal charges of election interference in a way which might well bias a trial.
The BBC might not be "government funded state propaganda" but BBC governors are chosen by the government.
Farage got his spot by being UKIP lead and seeking to cover the range of views and be unbiased. Which, of course, can lead to its own biases. Yes, he seemed to get far too much air time, yet we have someone else in this thread saying the Beeb was clearly pro-EU.
The Arron Banks interview was indefensible, and I haven't yet heard a reasonable response there.
Since regulation was passed to Ofcom and the BBC board was created the government get to recommend only some. Not sure of exact number, but think it's a minority. Supposedly to further distance them from claims of state control.
In my experience, the BBC tends to err on the side of opposition. It doesn't seem to matter who is in power... I'm speaking as someone who has lived in Canada for the past 18 years and has been subject to U.S. TV for that long.
I find the BBC really refreshing because they don't hyper sensationalize everything. The news is presented as if it's factual objective (not to say that it is, but it appears to be) and understated, much like the stereotypical English person.
When I watch British TV, I get a very definite feeling that I'm being persuaded to draw my own conclusions, whereas American TV, I'm blatantly being fed an opinion and told what I'm supposed to be thinking which I still after 18 years find incredibly irritating.
It doesn't matter if the BBC is biased or not. There's no competition, so it's always possible to make the charge.
For all its faults, I still prefer the American system better. It's not better in every way... commercials (especially political ones) are a plague... but I would rather err on the side of Free Speech.
The problem with American TV is you're blatantly being force fed opinions on everything. Being told what to think. Opinions are spewed at you with such a level of emotion and passion that you can't avoid feeling anything. Much as you try to brush it off, it affects how you perceive life.
The British approach to TV is "This is what's going on. Do with that as you will." It's presented as if it are objective facts, calmly and with a distinct lack of emotion. The only time you ever seem to be force fed emotional opinions are by sports commentators and Band Aid concerts.
I don't think the BBC supports a political party, but support for certain positions is certainly evident. They are clearly pro-EU and anti-Israel, for instance.
I went to a "meet the senior managers" public feedback event at the BBC a few years ago. The Chairman, Director General, controller of BBC 1 and a few other top level people were there to hear the views of the public.
They were repeatedly, in turn, accused of being both pro-Israel/anti-Palestine and anti-Israel/pro-Palestine by various audience members, each using their own cherry-picked examples.
If you can attract that level of criticism from both sides of the argument, I think you can lay a reasonable claim to being fairly neutral. They certainly weren't "clearly" anti-Israel to some people.