That's not the case at all. They may do that for some topics but not for all. At the moment coverage of Ukraine really is "war reporting" in the classic sense, i.e, there is control and a line to follow to make sure one side is pure white and the other side pure black.

In what other way could they possibly represent the war?

Some people buy into the narrative that NATO is partially to blame for the war because it allowed Ukraine to seek membership.

It seems like nonsense to me because Ukraine has not joined NATO nor is it close to doing so.

Another side would be to compare the war to other US wars of recent years. This has a bit more merit as the US has done similar invasions including bombing civilians with even more flimsy justifications without becoming an international pariah state like Russia is now. You won’t find the BBC making such comparison for sure. But two wrongs don’t make a right.

One country invaded another.

There is no other position to take.

If Putin didn't Putin then there would be no deaths. Ukraine were not planning on invading Russia.

Yes one country invaded the other and that invasion should rightly be condemned. That does not mean that one side is absolutely 'good' in everything and the other absolutely 'evil'.

A few days ago Ukrainian forces apparently shot dead an Israeli civilian at a road checkpoint because they though he was Chechen, for instance. It's been barely mentioned.

Then, sorry for bringing this up yet again, but "one country invaded another" equally applies to what the US have done many times, especially recently in Iraq (~100k-500k deaths). This does not absolve Russia but provides similar examples to show that the way global events and wars are reported depends as much on what's happening as it does on who's doing it because the bottom line is always geopolitical struggle, not 'good' and 'evil'.

You mean like this story that was on the front page of the BBC News website a couple of days ago and also featured on the 6pm and 10pm BBC 1 news https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-africa-60573719

> > A few days ago Ukrainian forces apparently shot dead an Israeli civilian at a road checkpoint

> https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-invasion-israeli-dj-kille...

> However, Mr Brodsky's family reportedly told Israel's Channel 12 news site that they blame the "dictator" Vladimir Putin for his death.

I saw it mentioned in few UK news outlets. And the family blame Putin, as they should. If Putin hadn't put everyone under this much stress to survive then there wouldn't be any question about this DJ surviving. An accident during a period of surviving what is approaching a genocide, with indiscriminate murder from a tyrant, will happen.

Yes, I saw that... Civilian summarily executed by Ukrainian forces (which is not an 'accident' and one may even call this a war crime, to use the technical term) and the emphasise is on "parents blame Putin".

I'll rest my case.

What case?

> the emphasise is on "parents blame Putin".

Definitely not the emphasis in the link I provided.

You appear to be making up your own narrative.

Except for viewers in Scotland.

Or when the Irish elected Sinn Féin MPs to parliament and the voices of the MPs were banned from the BBC.

That wasn't BBC specific - it was a law for all UK media

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%931994_British_broa...

Those Sinn Fein MPs also happened to occupy leadership positions in the IRA, a proscribed terrorist organisation responsible for assassinating several MPs, launching mortar attacks against Downing Street, blowing up a hotel the PM was staying in, and murdering numerous civilians in indiscriminate bombings.

I would recommend you search for "Military Reaction Force" - the terrorism started with the British Army.

Except for trans women in articles calling them rapists, which is interesting considering they had no problems interviewing a known cis porn actress who has raped multiple people on set.

The article was titled: "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women" [1], and it's a genuine phenomenon.

Note that it says "some" - there are indeed some men who want to be women pressuring actual women who are only attracted to women, to pursue sexual relationships with them. In effect, it's no different to lesbians being told variations of "I'll fuck you straight", and similar homophobic abuse, by other heterosexual men.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385

1) That has nothing to do with my point that no trans women were included in the article, disproving the claim that they care about presenting both sides

2) What do men have to do with this? Are you implying trans women are men?

1. This is demonstrably incorrect, please read the article. They interviewed Rose of Dawn and Debbie Hayton, both of whom identify as transwomen, and both of whom, being decent people, are appalled by the sort of sexual coercion that the article describes.

2. Yes: by definition, transwomen are men who want to be women to such an extent that they will attempt to masquerade as such in everyday life - adopting typically female names and attire, often also taking hormonal treatments to feminise their appearance, and sometimes even undergoing genital surgery.