Here's something you may have missed (as I did, until now)...
Hold the presses! The BBC Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) has actually ruled against a BBC website article:
The “sanitised narrative” of Hiroshima’s atomic bombing, bbc.co.uk: Finding by the Editorial Complaints Unit
ComplaintAccording to this online article, the rationale that the use of the A-bombs was intended to shorten the war and avoid an indefinite number of casualties “was constructed after the war, by America’s leaders, to justify what they had done”. The historian Antony Beevor complained that this stated as fact a view which conflicted with contemporaneous evidence.
OutcomeThere are contemporaneous sources which make clear that extremely high estimates of casualties in the event of an invasion of Japan played a major part in US thinking. The ECU concluded that what the article stated as a fact was strongly contested, on the basis of credible evidence. Upheld
Further actionThe matter was discussed in detail with the author of the article (the BBC’s Tokyo Correspondent), who revised it in the light of the finding. The headline, which was not the responsibility of the author, was also changed.
The article in question was by Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, and blogs like this (including this very blog) criticised it strongly at the time.
Would the BBC have 'fessed up though if it hadn't been someone as prestigious as Antony Beevor complaining?