If I thought the snippet you quote was in any way typical of the BBC’s coverage of the war I would say it was biased. But in fact that’s far from the case.
The BBC posted numerous journalists, embedded and otherwise, throughout Iraq. These people reported their first-hand experiences and inevitably those reports frequently contrasted with one another. In addition, the BBC coverage routinely included interviews with spokespersons from the US and British administrations and representatives of the coalition forces, including Ari Fleischer, Donald Rumsfeld, Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, Major General Stanley McChrystal and others. They frequently broadcast the views of pro-war Kuwaitis, anti-war Jordanians and Syrians, military strategists, military technology specialists, historians and other academics, spokespersons for the Arab League, the EU, Russia, France, Germany, Spanish coalition supporters, Australian military and government representatives, representatives from Turkey, representatives from the de facto independent Kurdish region of Iraq, Iraqi-Americans, British Iraqis, journalists co-opted from the Al Jazeera network, American journalists (pro- and anti-war), P. J. O’Rourke, the BBC World Service’s representatives from Arab and non-Arab Muslim departments, their Arabic language departments, their Israeli correspondents, anti-war protests taking place in five continents, anti-anti-war protests within the USA, Iraqis welcoming the coalition forces, Iraqis protesting against the coalition forces etc. etc. My perception of the BBC’s objectivity comes from that variety and quality of its sources.
Any organisation that gives as much airtime to Richard Perle as the BBC does could never be accused of anti-US bias (unless you subscribe to the “give ’em enough rope and they’ll hang themselves” school of thought) – he was on BBC 2’s flagship current affairs programme yet again tonight, by the way.
It’s ridiculous to claim, as you seem to be doing, that all broadcast media are equally biased, or that an intelligent person cannot be expected to tell the difference between objective coverage and propaganda.
If you genuinely believe that the coverage of the Iraqi war provided by Fox News is comparable with that provided by other news sources then you should be able to back that up with a description of their sources as I’ve described the BBC’s sources. Contributors to this thread should be trusted to consider what you have to say rationally, and to decide for themselves whether it can be judged as objective, biased, or inconclusive. It seems to me that that is what the OP has been asking for.
I’m not here to praise the BBC’s coverage of the war or to defend Greg Dyke’s remarks, or criticise Fox News’s coverage (I’ll repeat that I haven’t seen Fox News). But I do find it surprising that you are so keen to contribute to this thread while being so reluctant to address the OP directly. I find your view that objectivity cannot be assessed rationally to be very unconvincing. You are clearly not a fool and you should be able to assess the objectivity of the US broadcast media’s coverage of this war and to give us your views about that even if you do believe that Dyke’s remarks had self-interest behind them.