Lol. That's pretty good.
I watched a [British] program that showed BBC bias, how they report things differently and use certain words at certain times for different things to cunningly to shape things based on their bias. They quoted BBC board members who admitted that they have a policy of intentionally undermining the US and reporting as negatively as they can on certain other things, while being intentionally overly positive of some. The editors intentionally shape reports for political purposes.
For instance, it showed how both on TV and on their website, if they talked about a NASA space mission, or some scientific advancement in the US, they'd almost never mention "US" or "American". They'd either name the organization, or the individual with no reference of nationality. But in the same segment or article, they'd quote specifically "British" or "London-based" people who weren't even involved in it, but would comment on it... thus trying to make it appear as if British people were involved in what was actually an American achievement. While they almost never credited things to Americans or the US, they would clearly do it for people of other countries. If there was a scientific breakthrough in the UK or in Europe, they'd name "English scientists" "UK scientists" or "Dutch researchers" or something. They'd only mention the US or describe something as "American" if their was a subtle critique or negative taint to the topic.
Also, a BBC reporter talked how his editor told him to change the wording in an article, because it's BBC policy to undermine and belittle the US military specifically. The reporter wrote an article about Russian Bear bomber planes going on patrol and flying into UK territory, and US territory. The proper term for jets being used to intercept incoming planes is called "scrambling". For instance "incoming Migs, scramble the F16s". When the article covered the US part, they author of the article was told by the editor that he had to exploit the typical reader's ignorance of the military term "scramble" to make it appear that while US planes were caught off guard to meet the Russian planes, UK planes casually intercepted the Bombers. It said something like "American jets scrambled when the Russia plane approached", but made it appear as if the UK military action was very organized and methodical, saying something like "RAF fighters were sent up to meet the Russian bombers". They use very subtle ways of warping news to convey a political point. Very sly propaganda basically.
It may not seem like that big of a deal, and sometimes articles won't employ the same bias but on the program I watched, they compiled statistics and showed that there was like a 50 to 1 ratio of negative coverage compared to positive coverage of the US. There was a consistent trend of subtle differences, which happened so often and so exclusively to coverage of the US, that it was undeniable that there was a meticulous effort and it wasn't just a coincidence or different writing/reporting styles of individuals at BBC.
That may not bother you, and you may claim that American media is more biased (which I dispute). But yeah, the BBC is full of shit.
Anyway, I have the program saved on my TiVo, I'm trying to figure out how to put it on my computer and upload it on youtube in segments.