Drinking from home is doing good work in identifying particular examples of BBC bias, in this case the BBC’s Tehran correspondent, Frances Harrison, trying to blame an aviation accident in Iran on US sanctions. It's as ludicrous a claim as one can imagine. Iran is an oil-rich nation capable of running a nuclear
weapons power programme. If it wants to maintain its planes properly, it clearly can.
The BBC pulled the offending article from its website, but is now repeating the claim elsewhere. I find it hard to answer the all-important question cui bono? It's easy to denounce the BBC as biased, or as a tool of the Government which collects the special tax to fund it. But how does it benefit the BBC or any of its correspondents to be biased, not just against a particular political viewpoint, but against Western civilisation itself? Any theories?