[NeedMoreTea]

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.

[andrewmu]

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.

[NeedMoreTea]

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.