That argument has been made unsuccessfully for at least 20 years.

Basically this is a clasical exmple of the application of a British rhetorical lens to an event that the United States believes demands legal precision, resulting in a clash between narrative truth and juridical truth. Or Greece v Rome, if you want to get all online about it.

The BBC edit mirrored the central factual claim of the impeachment, and because that impeachment failed, it transformed a (now) legally unproven allegation into an apparent historical fact, basically collapsing a contested event into false certainty.

My point is that they all have. The BBC as anyone pre-internet remembers it is gone and will never return. This is as good as it the BBC can possibly be under the circumstances.

Or for the incorrect comma usage and weak clause linkage.

The BBC doesn't produce cultural output to the same degree or quality anymore and cannot because budgetary constraints and collapsing viewing figures prevent risk taking. Cultural stewardship is as important as headline impartiality

This is like Brown taking credit for the Clarke economy. Meloni only needs to not mess-up the Draghi stewardship of the economy and his succesful deployment of NGEU funds. And she *is* slowly messing it up

Well-put, and in alignment with what I wrote earlier.

What is the point of the BBC if it cannot act as a cultural benchmark?

The truth is that this resignation shows a deeper lack of confidence. The BBC no longer believes in its own purpose and doesn't have the resources to achieve that purpose. This loss of conviction (and the means of conviction) is what has led to this further humiliation.

Just wit until you read about the monetized data transfers made by the NHS

It has no powers of comprehension. It cannot think, or draw new information into pre-existing memory to create new ideas. It cannot remember what it said two answers ago. It gets confused after 5 minutes.