Stephen Pollard has written a scathing article on the BBC. He does not think it a good use of taxpayers' money that our main state broadcaster is giving £2m to its journalists to compensate them now that it is banning them from writing in newspapers.

Of course it is a waste of taxpayers' money. But I wonder if it really makes sense to stop BBC journalists from writing. The BBC thinks (perhaps correctly) that its journalists are causing it embarrassment. Viewers may indeed have less faith in the BBC after reading Andrew Gilligan's articles. But, from a public service point of view, isn't it good that we, the taxpayers, know the prejudices of the reporters?

Journalists cannot be expected to provide news from an Archimedean point, as though they are looking down from a distant vantage point with no initial views of their own. Not everyone employed at the BBC is a left-winger. Nor, as often claimed, is the BBC "institutionally biased" (as only individuals can be biased). But if the BBC wants to be seen as balanced, maybe BBC News should employ more journalists on the right of the political spectrum?

There is of course a more important issue: why in a multi-channel world is the BBC still paid for out of taxation?