Oh I agree, ITV and Sky are even worse. As much as it will just fuel Intepid's fire, a mainstream orientated commercial tv news station or programme will always have to appeal to the largest number of people in order to increase the advertising revenue. There are more thick people than clever, so the news must be tailored to match.
I rarely bother watching any news on TV these days, but yeah, Channel 4 is the only one that doesn't patronise you and often raises some important issues. Of course, despite carrying adverts, Channel4 has public service obligations too.
Channel 4 is the most state controlled of all the "independent channels". It's entire founding principle was to cover public service broadcasting that did not fit into the BBC's edict. It's about as independent as a conjoined twin.
Although FOX News is... FOX News it gave voices to people several years ago predicting the massive financial meltdown we are now experiencing. Even though at the time it was very inconvinient to the Replublican party who were in office at the time.
Then you switch over to the BBC to hear the presenters state, as if it were FACT, that "no one could have possibly seen this meltdown coming". Good ol' BBC always behind the curve ball! People DID see it coming, and were quite VOCAL about it. That's licence fee value right there but at least you don't get adverts!
Also in reference to this anti-advert thing. I suspect quite a lot of your jobs are based around gaining revenue through ad campaigns. Without sufficient opportunities to advertise businesses a lot of them go under or don't gain enough profits to maintain or increase work force. But you guys clearly don't think about that before stating 'ads are bad' because it's profits obtained from advertising campaigns that help pay for your precious BBC
edit: for the first time EVER i have heard on a British TV News channel that quantitative easing effectively reduces the value of a currency. Common sense at last from guys who?.......... Sky NEWS!