One of the examples of BBC bias used by Stephen Glover in his recent column I say this in sadness, but unless the BBC gets its act together it may not be here in 15 years was the BBC's Max Mosley coverage (or the lack of it):
The third example of bias came yesterday after the Mail revealed how Max Mosley supported the revoltingly racist far-Right in the early Sixties, and apparently concealed this fact when successfully suing the now defunct News of the World in 2008 for describing his orgy as Nazi-themed.
You'd have thought this was meat and drink for the Beeb, especially after Channel Four News brilliantly eviscerated Mosley. But for several hours it was shtum. When Labour announced it wouldn't be accepting more money from Mosley, the BBC carried a brief story on its website, but still ignored it on its news bulletins.
Was it fear of the tycoon that held Auntie back? Or was she unwilling to pick up the story because it had originated in the Mail, which her left-leaning journalists regard with suspicion? Either way, it was another instance of disgracefully inept journalism.
Well, today, Labour's shadow chancellor John McDonnell made life very difficult for Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson over Max Mosley by telling Sky News that Mr. Watson should consider returning Mr. Mosley's £540,000 donation - the headline for which could be: Labour Shadow Chancellor Chucks Labour Deputy Leader Under a Bus over Max Mosley Racism Claims.
It's obviously a newsworthy political story, and even the Guardian is now reporting it in great detail. But so far the BBC is staying shtum, again.
Will they report it? And if they do, how will they report it? And (if they bury it in the deeper recesses of the BBC News website) will anyone notice?