Here's a perfect example of BBC bias by ommission. On Sunday, every bulletin and every report contained the claim by Jan Egeland, the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, that - well, here's how the BBC site reported it:

He says the large scale of the destruction, and its indiscriminate nature, renders it a violation of humanitarian law.

And that's it. No follow up, no context, no room for doubt.

But as Matt d'Ancona noticed:

As he was swept away by his minders, however, one could hear Egeland musing to himself that one could not tell what or who might have been standing between the residential buildings at the time of the Israeli attack. This, a hugely important qualification to his legal judgment, made no headlines. But it is of the essence in the argument about Israel’s bombardment of southern Lebanon. Was it not possible, as even Egeland seemed to be conceding, that Hezbollah had deliberately placed men or munitions in a civilian area to ensure precisely the television images that the UN so obligingly delivered?

Indeed, yesterday Mr Egeland was far more explicit:

The UN's aid chief Jan Egeland has accused Israel of using excessive force, but on Monday he accused Hezbollah of contributing to the problem by what he called "cowardly blending in among women and children".

"I heard there was a statement they were proud they had lost very few fighters, and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think you want to be proud of having many more children and women than armed men [killed]," Mr Egeland said, speaking in Beirut.

Yes, I found that on a BBC site. But having spent most of yesterday and this morning watching and listening to BBC coverage, I heard not one reference to that critical point being made. What a contrast with Sunday's coverage, in which a partial report of what Mr Egeland said was splashed everywhere across the BBC.

And where is it on the BBC site - as far as I can tell, the sole reference to it anywhere on the BBC, radio, TV or internet?

In the 21st and 22nd paragraphs of a 24 paragraph report.

So in the BBC's view, when a UN official says blame is attached to both sides, the only balanced report is one which says he blames only one side. And when that official goes out of his way to point out he blames both sides, just bung in a cursory reference at the fag end of an internet page.