Are you serious? There was a whole government-sponsored inquiry over this that kneecapped the BBC basically because it had covered the intelligence that led up to the war critically.
Much like how the BBC has "covered" torture, collateral murder, and the likes which Assange and Snowden revealed - better than the tabloids, and not nearly good enough.
And re: whether he was murdered - pretty much everyone who knew David Kelly, including his wife, called it a suicide because there was absolutely no evidence that his death was anything but a suicide.
He gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the 15th and 16th of July, and was found dead on the 17th.
...
> One of the witnesses who gave evidence to Hutton was David Broucher, the UK's permanent representative to the Conference on Disarmament. In 2002 or 2003 he had asked Kelly what would happen if Iraq were invaded; Kelly had replied "I will probably be found dead in the woods".
Don't remember BBC making much of a deal of that quote.
His wife was probably scared shitless and in no space to fight. And there were many who didn't find the official line credible including doctors, the former leader of the Conservative Party, and MP Norman Baker, among many others. Try checking your own facts before calling people wrong.
The idea that you know more about David Kelly's state of mind at the time than his own family is sort of galling.
Thanks for the comment. As someone from outside the UK I know very little about the BBC. Could you elaborate on your views regarding The Guardian?
The Guardian has come under fire recently for having a pretty anti-trans editorial board. At the same time, it's still one of the more left-leaning broadsheets in the UK.
The Guardian being fake left wing might not be the view of the average Briton, but Chomsky and Klein would agree. The average Briton voted for Brexit then Googled what it meant after they won. Also, I'm not British.
I will never forget the way the BBC "covered" Corbyn, with the heavy handed propaganda techniques and constant repetition of patently ridiculous smears. Meanwhile, that BoJo prick had his gaffes covered over, such as [1].
I'll never forget how the BBC "covered" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and David Kelly.
The original article mentions ever so briefly how the BBC "covered" the troubles - it was a constant stream of one sided filth for decades. To this day, coverage of those years remains sheer propaganda, though with less naked venom and foaming at the mouth.
So, when people write articles like this implying the BBC walks a tight rope of bias, my stomach churns. Like the Guardian, they never deserved their reputation and have gotten tremendously worse in the last decades.
[1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-boris-joh...