The BBC has never been impartial to internal concerns - domestic politics in particular. Leveson Inquiry recommendations not being implemented is the tip of the iceberg in relation to the extent of client-journalism it engages in with regard to the Conservative party.

https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/bbc-under-sc...

The problem isn’t the balance, it’s the police state. I don’t want an authoritarian Left government any more than I want an authoritarian Right or Center government.

> attacked from both sides, therefore we must be right/balanced/fair", which is totally not how it works

Exactly. Also because this is easily gamed by attacking the media that is already biased in your favour to get an even more favourable treatment.

One thing that is often missed in this narrative is that the UK has a voting system which was explicitly designed to counteract this issue reaching definitive results with the minimum amount of consensus.

I agree with you but I think this idea of being "fair" is something that is said but no-one actually believes in. Most recent government is one of the most extreme examples of this: do things that annoys everyone, say you are just being "fair" because everyone is annoyed...it doesn't make sense.

To say this another way, there is genuinely an easier option: stop doing things that people do not want.

The obvious implication is that "balance" between freedom and surveillance just moves things away from freedom.

Of course, on the note of being attacked from "both" sides, there are often more than two sides to a story. Also, not every side has to be, or maybe even should be, considered with equal weight.

The "eating shit" fallacy as I like to call it.

Just because a fascist and a communist agree that eating shit is bad, doesn't mean that eating shit is a good idea.