Would I be correct in inferring that your main agenda has been to knock the BBC's coverage of the Syrian situation rather than seek enlightenment on whether armed militia should be treated as terrorists or freedom fighters. May I ask whether you are suggesting that the BBC is the only TV organisation that has been giving favourable coverage of the anti-Assad side of the dispute? Why have you confined your remarks to the BBC when practically most other western media, following their Governments' leads, have adopted similar supportive positions of those Syrian forces trying to get rid of Assad.
Regards Libya, you say that you supported the no fly zone. But did you support Nato bombing too? More generally, did you support the rebels' cause against Gaddafi. If so why, and how is their cause different from the forces now lined up against Assad in Syria which you apparently don't support. And what about the western media's coverage of the various battle scenes in Libya. Did you find anything objectionable about the way it sided strongly with the anti-Gaddafi forces, including the use of embedded TV crews. Did you find objectionable the BBC's coverage of that war? Or perhaps you did approve of the way the media operated in that conflict, including the BBC. We don't know because you haven't told us.