If by that you mean I try to maintain a sense of balance and responsibility then I agree.

I read those reports! Did you?

What both say is neither surprising nor any kind of indication that actual bias exists. What they confirm is that the perception of bias has increased which is obviously true but not the same at all.

From the Express piece "The British broadcaster is still believed to be performing well “in many respects”."

From the Guardian "The impartiality of the corporation’s news output has come under attack from all sides in recent years, especially following the Brexit referendum. It has been at the focus of discussions over whether the national broadcaster should be giving airtime to individuals who represent extreme views in the name of balance.

Hall said that perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality had ‘“weakened in recent years”, adding: “We need to see what we can do to strengthen them.”

That Ofcom should investigate complaints of bias is quite right and is only doing it's duty. That doesn't mean that bias actually exists, especially if the source of the complaints is itself biased in one direction or the other.

Your own attitude is confirmation of a biased viewpoint. The BBC have a tricky path to find and then follow. I think they do pretty well.

That is a quite ridiculous claim.

No journalist would ever "ignore a generation of children being abused and trafficked because they didn't like the facts of the cases".

With the benefit of hindsight it looks as though some serious errors of judgement have been made by some people. You cannot though make a blanket condemnation of a whole industry because of that.

I have little doubt that whatever decisions were taken at the time they were made in good faith and in the belief that, with all the facts then available, they were in everyone's best interests.

Mistakes are a fact of life. They can never be eliminated. All we can do is learn and improve, which is why enquiries are held.

Pointing the finger, getting angry and claiming that you knew better serves no-one because no-one can ever see the future.

I have no more idea than you what the editors involved decided at the time, or why. What I expect is whatever decisions were taken would have been because they were either unaware of the scale of the problem, or perhaps that it so serious that it needed to be handled quietly by the authorities without the oxygen of a public outcry stirring things up. That you and others now disagree with the latter possible approach doesn't mean that, if taken, such a decision was made in bad faith.

Journalists don't "shift the blame"! Only people in forums try to do that. They report things as they see them and when they believe it to be fit and proper to do so. I have known a few in my life and their integrity is beyond question. Whatever their personal feelings might be their loyalty was always to the truth.

That is a quite ridiculous claim.

No journalist would ever "ignore a generation of children being abused and trafficked because they didn't like the facts of the cases".

With the benefit of hindsight it looks as though some serious errors of judgement have been made by some people. You cannot though make a blanket condemnation of a whole industry because of that.

I have little doubt that whatever decisions were taken at the time they were made in good faith and in the belief that, with all the facts then available, they were in everyone's best interests.

Mistakes are a fact of life. They can never be eliminated. All we can do is learn and improve, which is why enquiries are held.

Pointing the finger, getting angry and claiming that you knew better serves no-one because no-one can ever see the future.

I have no more idea than you what the editors involved decided at the time, or why. What I expect is whatever decisions were taken would have been because they were either unaware of the scale of the problem, or perhaps that it so serious that it needed to be handled quietly by the authorities without the oxygen of a public outcry stirring things up. That you and others now disagree with the latter possible approach doesn't mean that, if taken, such a decision was made in bad faith.

Journalists don't "shift the blame"! Only people in forums try to do that. They report things as they see them and when they believe it to be fit and proper to do so. I have known a few in my life and their integrity is beyond question. Whatever their personal feelings might be their loyalty was always to the truth.

No journalist would ever "ignore a generation of children being abused and trafficked because they didn't like the facts of the cases".

Yes they did and what's more they still are. where is the outrage and calls for a full scale national public enquiry to stop this happening again? There is no general awareness in this country as to the scale of these abuses. It's a national tragedy. Why has there been nowhere near the publicity associated with other tragedies like Hillsborough or even Windrush. No mainstream journalist wants to touch this.

I have little doubt that whatever decisions were taken at the time they were made in good faith and in the belief that, with all the facts then available, they were in everyone's best interests.

Decisions by who and on what basis?

Mistakes are a fact of life. They can never be eliminated. All we can do is learn and improve, which is why inquiries are held.
Oh, the "It was all a big mistake" argument? Like I said there was no national public inquiry into this just local inquiries in Rochdale and Rotherham which only got cursory coverage in media. This happened in something like 20 city's in the UK that we know of (interestingly nothing surfaced so far in London Mr Khan). The scale and the number of people both abusers (100's at minimum) and victims (1000's at minimum) was massive). Nothing is being done to stop this happening again.

Pointing the finger, getting angry and claiming that you knew better serves no-one because no-one can ever see the future

Getting angry in this case is the appropriate response. It's a national scandal and a disgrace that 1000's of children were not protected from these monsters. They had every right to expect that and we cannot even be confident of this not happening to more children in the future. This failure sits with the press and all our institutions - to some extent all of us who were cowed in to political correctness because it seemed just like a nice thing to do but turned out to be an insidious disaster for our culture. I'll no longer stand for it.

Journalists don't "shift the blame"
Phuck me you are deluded. What do you think the blame quickly shifted away from the perpetrators and their "community" and moved on to the institutions. Why do you think we here endless concerns about of the "rise of the far right" whenever there is an Islamist terrorist attack? Why do you think Tommy Robinson and Farage are labelled literally as Nazi's (despite clear evidence to the contrary already in the public domain) and rarely or never invited to debate their views? yet grifters like Owen Jones, David Lammy and a host of other diverse talking heads regularly get a platform to call anyone right of Stalin a fascist, racist, bigot etc unchallenged?

So called journalists in the mainstream media rarely even leave their desks these days. They rarely talk to people they don't like (usually that ends badly for them) ultimately they are not journalists but activists who live in the south east bubble and troll social media for outrage.

That demonstrates very clearly what your own biases are. That's your business but just because you believe them doesn't mean they are true or the actions you believe are necessary are actually necessary.

You see I do believe that "Robinson" and Farage are both purveyors of fake messages who have character traits and policy proposals that are resonant of the Nazi era. Full blown Nazis no, but I can understand why the mud gets thrown.

Describing those on the left as "grifters" is further evidence of your bias.

You are fully entitled to hold whatever views you like but please don't expect me to take them too seriously when they are so full of such obvious bias.