Flogging a dead bitch, I know, but the following is the standard BBC response to complaints about its flagrant bias in all things political and most things economic and social, followed by a deconstruction:
It isn't always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes . Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period  they reflect the range of significant  views, opinions and trends in their subject area. The BBC doesn't seek to denigrate any view or to promote any view . It seeks rather to identify all significant  views, and to test them rigorously and fairly  on behalf of the audience . Among other evidence , audience research  indicates widespread confidence in the impartiality of the BBC's reporting.
- This is an assertion of the right to be selective. Impartial = all opinions, unweighted.
- Who defines 'a reasonable period'?
- Who defines what is 'significant'?
- This is an outright lie. Management dictates a corporate line on many issues.
- There cannot be anything 'rigorous and fair' in a situation where a single entity can define the law, control the evidence, and be the judge and jury of its own cause.
- An audience that has been declining for years, while the BBC poll tax has risen sharply.
- What evidence? Collected by whom?
- It is to be expected that the small percentage of the population that watches BBC reporting will believe it is impartial - people are always comforted by the affirmation of what they already believe.