Surely they'd be biased if they followed royal protocol 100%
Surely not. Thats like saying that a pupil who behaves himself in class is being biased, or that someone who takes a particular line because they know the objective truth is biased; ridiculous! But not to show due respect, and respect is due, is both unnecessarily ill-mannered and a sign of bias.
In anycase the point, that you perhaps aren't aware of, is that the BBC is not supposed to be unbiased for the sake being unbiased but because in the UK everyone, whatever their view, is forced to pay the BBC around £100 per a year if they have a TV, and it is therefore an injury to the viewer if this "public service" is delivered with an Agenda, hidden or otherwise. Therefore they insult me by insulting the Queen, despite the fact that I am no great supporter of the Queen.
Further, the BBC is not so insensitive that it would not be aware that a good section of the population of the UK would percieve the back-of-the-head-shot as a deliberate insult; and the BBC has enough intelligence to understand the importance of perception. IMO to insult someone is a fairly good indication of bias. In the case of the BBC it is truly inexcusable.
It may have a reputation for being balanced but three times in the last two years it has admitted to bias, twice in the case of the (relatively right-wing, but really traditionalist) Catholic Church, and once, just the other week, in the case of a prominent member of the (nominally right-wing, but really quite liberal) UK "Conservative Party". In the latter case they admitted to not "balancing" the report.
On top of all that: just last week they illustrated the Queens speech with a photo of the back of the Queen's crowned head, repeating the (republican-flavoured) insult of the left-wing UK "Guardian" newspaper which had published the same view of her head the day before.
I really don't think that they can be called balanced, or unbiased for that matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely not. Thats like saying that a pupil who behaves himself in class is being biased, or that someone who takes a particular line because they know the objective truth is biased; ridiculous! But not to show due respect, and respect is due, is both unnecessarily ill-mannered and a sign of bias.
In anycase the point, that you perhaps aren't aware of, is that the BBC is not supposed to be unbiased for the sake being unbiased but because in the UK everyone, whatever their view, is forced to pay the BBC around £100 per a year if they have a TV, and it is therefore an injury to the viewer if this "public service" is delivered with an Agenda, hidden or otherwise. Therefore they insult me by insulting the Queen, despite the fact that I am no great supporter of the Queen.
Further, the BBC is not so insensitive that it would not be aware that a good section of the population of the UK would percieve the back-of-the-head-shot as a deliberate insult; and the BBC has enough intelligence to understand the importance of perception. IMO to insult someone is a fairly good indication of bias. In the case of the BBC it is truly inexcusable.
On top of all that: just last week they illustrated the Queens speech with a photo of the back of the Queen's crowned head, repeating the (republican-flavoured) insult of the left-wing UK "Guardian" newspaper which had published the same view of her head the day before.
I really don't think that they can be called balanced, or unbiased for that matter.