Here's a secret from the world of 'BBC bias blogging' (one I'm dead certain that my blogging compatriots at B-BBC, BBC Watch, etc, will be more than familiar with): We actively hunt out accusations of bias against the BBC (like ultra-sound-guided, BBC-hating bats).
The problem with one key potential source, Twitter - due to it largely being a left-wing echo chamber with little connection to the mood of the British people as a whole -, is that most accusations of 'BBC bias' there tend to come from what peer-reviewed academic journals might (or might not) describe as "left-wing moonbats".
Even BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House received moans on Twitter today from such left-wing moonbats for featuring a nasty free-marketeer on this morning's interesting discussion about pay, the market and fairness.
That the said nasty free-marketeer (Jamie White, introduced as representing a "small" free-market party in New Zealand) was pitted against a TUC spokeswoman (Nicola Smith) and a left-wing academic (Dr Clare Chambers), making it 2:1 against the nasty free-marketeer, didn't seem to register with such enlightened people, who obviously just couldn't bear to have to listen to that horrible, horrible, horrible free-marketeer (poor lambs!).
And neither did Jonny's much stronger challenging of the free-marketeer, as compared to his far more helpful questions to his two left-leaning guests. [Jamie stood his ground though].
As James Harding says, just because the BBC gets criticised from both sides doesn't necessarily mean it's getting it about right.
