The BBC should report on all stories in a balanced way as set out in their Royal Charter and this should be especially the case on controversial high profile issues.
In an ideal world each report, on a given subject, should contain equal time airing both sides of the argument.
In reality this seldom if ever happens and the BBC rely on stating, when I have complained about bias over the last 25 years, that over the course of time their reporting balances out as they do cover both sides of a story. This from my experience is simple NOT true and in any case is very difficult to prove unless one listens and watches all the BBC's output armed with a stop watch.
Recently Quentin Letts broadcast on Radio 4 a series under the title 'What is the point of the.' His first one, which I heard, took a light hearted look at the Met Office which rightly came in for some stick about getting so many weather forecasts wrong over the years and of course that they unquestioningly supported Climate Change.
Well the 'Green Blob' took exception to this programme and lobbied the BBC that it should be removed from the I-player and after a couple of weeks it duly was. This programme was but ONE giving an opposing view on Climate Change, and as I say in a light hearted way, and yet the BBC took it down as if it had never existed. This is censorship of the most invidious kind.
Quentin Letts wrote a full page article about this saga in Saturday's Daily Mail and is well worth a read just to see how the BBC really works.
It is pretty clear to me that the BBC regularly breaks its Royal Charter and does NOT report in a balanced way at or even over time.