Here's a perfect example if inappropriate BBC 'reporting':

Previous eruptions of violence that began in a roughly similar manner, such as the 1996 Grapes of Wrath bombardment, were curtailed at a much lower level than the current paroxysm.

One major difference this time is that Israel enjoys an indulgence from Washington far beyond anything previous, essentially giving it a free hand.

While previous administrations, despite commitment to the strategic alliance with Israel, kept at least some distance in earlier crises, the US under George W Bush immediately adopted Israel's primary war aim.

...If the current course continues - and there is no sign of an imminent turnaround - there is no predicting how far and how fast the flames may spread, as Israel plunges deeper into open-ended warfare with forces challenging the very foundations of its existence.

There is an alternative, favoured by most of the international community apart from the US and Israel: an immediate ceasefire, followed by negotiations to address the underlying issues and stabilise the truce.

Hezbollah itself is willing to agree on an immediate ceasefire and an exchange of prisoners that would see the two captured Israeli soldiers return home.

Other issues would then be on the table, such as the disarming of Hezbollah or the merger of its forces into the Lebanese Army - a step that was already under active discussion before the current crisis blew up.

This is not reporting or even impartial, analysis. It's an opinion piece, which would be perfectly proper in a paper such as the Guardian or Independent, but which in being presented in the BBC's site as supposedly impartial analysis, is entirely inappropriate. But given the BBC's imprimateur, there will be people who take it as gospel.