The BBC News is somewhat biased, but, so is most of the News programming here in the US. the 'Major Networks' which include CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN all take their marching orders from the New York Times. The NYT in turn is owned by a former 'hippie' who believes that the Viet Nam War was started by the Republican Party (America's involvement there with combat troops was actually a ploy by President Lindon Johnson, a Democrat, to defuse criticism that he was 'soft on Communism'), and that the Communists should have won the Cold War. (He is ignorant of the fate of journalists under any totalitarian regime. He has no clue what 'Up against the wall' really means.) This means that news coverage and editorial slant in the US is determined by a select group of no more than 20 people, who all live in the same area and all imitate each others prejudices and opinions. Those people then decide what is and what is not news, based on what they want to hear. The government owned/operated network, PBS/NPR is somewhere to the left of the New York Times. Every news organization, of course, claims that it is the only one that is 'fair and balanced'. None are.
As far as I have been able to find out, no news reporting organization has ever been unbiased and accurate. They are, after all made up of people. People always have opinions. Opinions expressed are what constitutes bias.
The lone large hold out in the US News Industry is Fox News. CNN used to be the hold out, but, when Ted Turner bought Time-Warner in the late 1990s and with it CBS, and then married (Hanoi) Jane Fonda, CNN was folded into the same NYT worshiping group.
Fox News is a different sort of hold out. Rupert Murdoch wants to make money, so he tries to serve a market that is under-served. Fox News uses opinion polls to find where the average of American Opinion is, and then makes that set of values their Editorial Standard.
I understand that in the UK he follows the same formula (find a market that is under served and fill it), but there, he is in the tabloid (rumor, scandal and gossip) market. Here in the US, that role is filled by the National Inquirer, which is distributed over an area larger than all of Europe (excluding the former Soviet Union) so that market niche is already taken.
CNN has noticed it is slipping against Fox, and is starting to provide less pro-socialist, anti-religious bias (the standard NYTimes agenda) during off election years. The US is generally more religious than Europe is.
In the US, Fox News has a 45% viewership share, verses 55% split among all the other five or six sources.
If you look at an election map by county of America from the last Presidential Election, President Obama and his party lost in 95% of American counties, but, won by a large amount in the large cities of the Northeast US, and the west Coast. He also won in Chicago and a few other large cities where the Metropolitan Population is well over 1 Million people. These are areas with large numbers of publicly supported people, such as welfare recipients, government workers (except military personnel) and university professors and students. There were also a couple of million dead people who voted for him. That is normal for Chicago politics.
Like most cases, these people in the largest cities vote for Democrats (the current mild pro socialist party in America) because they expect to get money from them. The other side, includes the Military, and those who don't want more government or taxes. They worry that the government will take more money from them.
Republicans are not really anti-socialist, they just want to take it slower. After all, socialism means more government power. Politicians don't go into power because they don't want power.
Historically, Democrats have since 1846 taken money from the Military to spend on their supporters, usually in causes that will not benefit more than a few percent of the nations people. Historically, Democrats get the US involved in major wars just after the military gets reduced. Soldiers know this very well. Presidents Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Trueman, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama have all given proof of this.
Both parties, of course, support government sponsored monopolies in large corporations. The two parties just have different industry groups they support. There is considerable overlap among the largest corporations with the two parties. Most of what is called the Fortune 500 actually support both parties to assure that the winner owes them. It works too. General Electric, for instance, usually pays no Federal Taxes. Microsoft has lost at least two Anti-Trust cases that should have resulted in the breakup of the company, they had to call in a couple of favors and then Microsoft was actually allowed to write the settlement, and even to have one judge replaced because he knew too much about what the company had done.
The other political parties in the US are not large enough to matter in a system where winner takes all on a county or state basis. Only the Libertarians have had any victories in living memory. The Communists, the Greens, the Socialists and the various hate groups combined have less than 1% anywhere in the US. The Libertarians pull around 5%, but that is spread around the entire country.
But back on the topic, The BBC has several large money products in the United States. The US Government financed network, PBS, airs many of the stuffier BBC dramas, mysteries and selected comedies, along with it's own science and political support/propaganda programming. The Beeb is paid for this content. Also, the US Cable industry offers Beeb programming as a possible extra, and internet program providers such as Netflicks and Hulu include Beeb productions in their programming lineups. Dr. Who, for instance, is quite popular here in the US. So are the endless imitations of Jane Austins novels with extremely proper aristocracy carrying on.
I don't know what the money flow to the Beeb from the US is, but, it is certainly well over 100 Million Dollars per year. Perhaps, as high as a Half Billion per year. Even that amount is just a drop in the bucket compared to the money Hollywood pulls in, but it is still a respectable drop from a very large bucket.
Sorry, I should not go on so much.