And i've found they've generally been really hard on the extremes.

I mean, did you see the episode of Question Time where they completly tore apart the leader of that one Extreme party... UKIP or whatever.

BBC isn't any better then anyone else... you can see their biases just as easy as anyone elses in their articles.

I read about it at some forums... and I can hardly believe that news channels wouldn't cover something like that. It's amazing actually.

Firstly I'm talking about them as a news source - not their political debate show.

Secondly they were ripped apart for being too soft on the extremes for allowing the BNP leader onto the show in the first place.

1) If yout talking about politcal debate shows... that's what 24 hour news networks run almost exclusivly.    They do have more balanced "news reporting" shows and those are usually on in the middle of the day when people won't watch them.  Stuff like Keith Olberman and Bill O'Reily are poltical debate shows.  Not news reporting shows.

2) That's an issue in itself isn't it?  That they get criticism for allowing a legitamite politcal party to express their views.  If you actually saw that epsiode though you'd see that's exactly what they didn't.  They were extremly unproffesional and gave the guy questions that were generally disgraceful.

Even when people are idiots it is the media's duty to not hammer then with their own talking points.  But instead ask them nuetral unloaded questions.

Well if you look at the initial post he was talking about the BBC when doing serious reporting. That's also what I'm talking about.

Which, as i said.  Is no more biased then those networks when they're actually doing their "serious reporting".

All the bias clips are usually taken from Primetime... and occasionally the morning shows.

It isn't that they didn't cover it, so much as how they covered it: with thinly veiled contempt (if they bothered to veil it at all) and by constantly implying that people who want the government to adopt more responsible fiscal policies are fringe nutjobs and racists.

All but Fox News, that is, who actively promoted the rallies like hell.

The problem is that they are. I believe in the former to a great extent, but the political group that mostly represents them is the Republicans, who the moment they get into power lose all fiscal control and hand out huge subsidies to big business while cutting taxes only for the rich - the exact opposite of what I support. In practice, the Democrats do a better job with the country's finances. Turning up at the protests is in favour of less economic control and more fringe-nutjob Republican policies like tax cuts on a huge deficit.

Anyway I've just given up on the BBC as a neutral news source. The government and main opposition have approved a joint policy (i.e. impossible to vote against since there are only two parties that could form a government) of doubling university fees and making better universities cost more (meaning all but the rich or unemployed* won't be able to afford university) and the BBC made it a minor story in an obscure section on their website and TV news.

*Since they will have 100% of that fee paid by the state. Plus another 100% given back as no-strings-attached cash for some reason.

I'm no fan of the Republicans, but there is nothing nutty about being pissed off at a party which chides Bush over his recklessness, then promptly begins its own regimen of orgiastic spending - including more of the bailouts for which they'd hammered Bush - right after coming into power. The only incident at a "tea party" that can even remotely be construed as racist was one in which a black protestor was beaten up by white SEIU thugs.

Whatever deficiencies you might find in these particular protestors, I think there's something rather despicable about a media which treats anti-war protests (which are legitimate but have had more than their fair share of insanity), illegal immigrant marches, violent WTO protests, etc. with a respect that sometimes borders on reverence, but regularly tags these folks with as tasteless a term as "teabaggers".

Seriously? Do you honestly think that everyone who wants the government to adopt more responsible fiscal policies are nutjobs?