Will there be a real debate about BBC bias?

I recently received an email from the petitions office of the UK parliament:

Dear Frank Little,

You recently signed the petition _Public inquiry into the bias in the BBC_:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/234797

We want to hear about your experiences and views before petitions about the BBC are debated in Parliament on Monday 15 July at 4.30pm.

We learnt a lot from a recent online discussion about what petitioners think, and we'd now like to ask a few survey questions before the debate.  Your responses to this very short survey will also help to inform the debate. Click on this link to complete the survey:

https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/A3Z54/

Unfortunately, the description of the survey was all too true. It asked two questions about the need for an independent high-quality source of news and a final yes/no query about retaining the licence fee.

It did not ask why I wanted to do away with the licence fee (answer: because it is in effect a regressive tax) nor what I would replace it with (a continental-style household levy linked to council tax and therefore more closely aligned with ability to pay).

I have been one of those critical of the boost to the referendum Leave vote which the BBC gave. To summarise my arguments: the BBC has never given the coverage to EU affairs which it has accorded to domestic politics, therefore leaving its viewers and listeners in ignorance about the benefits of membership; it has been obsessed with "personalities", in particular Nigel Farage, who have overwhelmingly mouthed a simplistic anti-EU message; and the only reports from the parliament on its main evening news bulletins have been those of confrontations, led more often than not by Farage. Satire programmes like Have I Got News For You provide no real counter-balance.

Other critics have suggested that there are direct (through the board of governors) and indirect (well-endowed lobbyists) conservative influences on the top of the BBC. I would give the BBC the benefit of the doubt and say that the trouble is that its news and current affairs set-up is too geared to tabloid journalistic standards. In my view, current affairs - rather than strict news-gathering - soaks up too much of the licence-payer's contribution. The recent publication of highest BBC salaries attests to this - and that list excludes "independent" providers like Andrew Neil's company. If programmes of commentary and analysis were done away with, it would go a long way to reducing the  accusations - from all colours of the political spectrum - of BBC bias. The trouble is that politicians like anything that gives them publicity and therefore are susceptible to the BBC's arguments for maintaining them.

There are signs that BBC News is reporting more and speculating less. Could it be anything to do with the fact that al-Jazeera has returned to non-HD Freeview? With the possible exception of US-based broadcasters, these must be the world's best media for news coverage and it is good that the average viewer is again learning about what is going on outside the M25 periphery. BBC has licence fee income and money from selling on its reports to support its worldwide network. Al-Jazeera is bankrolled by Qatar. Channel 4 News is good (even if its interviewers hector) but it can only highlight so many situations round the world.  It is a good time for the news junkie prepared to do a bit of channnel-switching. All three face threats. Let us hope they are kept at bay.