The BBC practically sucks the cock of Google. We obviously keep a close eye on what Google does and whenever either of us turns up in the media, and it's astounding how lame some of the stories about Google are. Did you know they launched a Calendar the other day? The headline for that was "Google acts to organise your life". Ridiculous. Their marketing budget must go entirely towards bribing BBC writers to post their advertising copy.

I'm not bitter or anything, doesn't affect my salary either way, but it amazes me that a company like the BBC that's got a reputation, however inaccurate, for being unbiased can inform people enthusiastically that Google has launched a calendar, and the launch of Yahoo! 360, the blogging/social networking platform that's actually pretty decent, has precisely one mention on the whole BBC site. What's Google got? Well, they bought Blogger. You'd think it would merit a mention, but let's be fair, the BBC only likes to report what Google IS doing, not what it isn't.

> the BBC that's got a reputation, however inaccurate, for being unbiased

Too true. Calling the BBC unbiased or impartial is like saying the same about the Government.

Tish and fipsy. BBC News is the best we've got. If they're biased, what does that make ITV and Sky?

It's the best we've got, but it's still not completely impartial. And the whole Google thing really is quite laughable when you start to look at the articles one after the other.

I think it's incompetence rather than bias. BBC News is in general pretty good as far as I can tell, but the Technology section of the BBC News site publishes some appalling inaccuracies at times.

They've obviously latched onto Google, and aren't paying much attention to others. Which is pathetic and wrong and makes me not trust a word they say - but not intentionally biased, I think.

If you look at the politics section over any extended period of time, you'll see some horrendous editorialising and spin, particularly in anything that involves the US bombing a country, invading a country, or overthrowing the democratically elected government of a country. It sometimes gets smoothed out so that it's less conspicuous as the articles are revised, but the general thrust remains. In any matter that's particularly dicey, they tend to fall in line with the government's view (which is about the least trustworthy there is) rather than being objective about it.

They do certainly have less of an agenda than most news sites, and compared to something like Fox News it's obviously far more reliable, but there is still bias in there, and I don't think it's down solely to incompetence.

> In any matter that's particularly dicey, they tend to fall in line with the government's view (which is about the least trustworthy there is) rather than being objective about it.

Well, yes. Last time they said something the government didn't like, the chairman and the DG lost their jobs. Hutton was a massive injustice, and it's no doubt impacted on the BBC's news editorial far more than any deliberate bias.

Most of the issues with the technology section of BBC News are incompetence. I remember having an e-mail discusssion with the editor once as he was wrong about something, but wouldn't admit it.

Even things like yesterdays

Apple is in the process of moving all its computer products from IBM to Intel chips as part of its efforts to attract more consumers and increase its 5% share of the US market.

Well, yes, I suppose this is true, but the reason it is moving is because IBM couldn't give it what it wanted. There's more than just attracting new customers in it...