But when that happens it's no longer news - the news has to be objective by definition (Ofcom knows this and enforces it)

If you want opinion, read a newspaper (or opinion-paper as they should be called in Britain), go on internet forums, or watch opinion programmes - like The Big Questions on BBC One.

It's unbiased in the traditional sense of left/right wing. But, like I said, it is inherintly biased towards the establishment. I mean, look at healthcare: how many times have you ever seen somebody on the BBC talking about a no-Government approach to healthcare? I've personally never seen it. What I have seen, however, is several documentaries showing us how bad "private" care is in the USA.

It's not hard to understand why they're like this. Look at the incentives of the institution, they're financially based on a legally-mandated tv license. There's no way in hell a truly small Government party would ever support that. Most journalists (not just BBC) also go through the University system, where lectures are given, more often than not, by ex-establishment people. Many lecturers who teach politics and international relations, and to a lesser extent, economics and history, have come from jobs within Government organisations. So, while the line they give may not be biased towards a party, they are biased towards the establishment. And nobody notices because the media they've consumed all their lives has also been the same - separating "party issues" (unimportant window dressing), from the core of the establishment.

But when that happens it's no longer news - the news has to be objective by definition (Ofcom knows this and enforces it)

If you want opinion, read a newspaper (or opinion-paper as they should be called in Britain), go on internet forums, or watch opinion programmes - like The Big Questions on BBC One.

I'd actually make the counter arguement as well that the BBC is quite biased.  Honestly compaired to a newspaper like the unfortunatly named Christian Science Monitor that always goes out of the way to also advocate unpopular positions it looks extremely biased.

I'd argue there is no such thing as "Unbiased news coverage." 

The reporters political beleifs are practially the whole framework from which he views things.  That will ALWAYS effect how he views things even if they try not to.  There whole view of what unbiased means actually is biased.

The guy who hires people is going to want unbiased people, so he hires people HE thinks is unbiased... etc.

While i'm not a fan of advocacy journalism, I think it would be reckless to consider non advocacy based news shows unbiased... and EXTREMLY reckless to only have one main news source.

It would be absurd if I were to argue that unbias, purely objective news sources could exist; I know they can't. But I think news should try to be as unbias and as objective as feasibly possible if it is to present itself as news.