Rhoda.
1. The Wilson and Callaghan years were Labour, Heath was Tory. I used them to illustrate the fact that the BBC was always biased, and usually anti government (of whatever stripe) and even more partisan.
2.Yes I would like more balance (and, at the moment it still means anti government). With regard to climate what is balance? Equal billing to recognized science and any crackpot - do all health items have to have a homeopathy spokesperson to represent their viewpoint, does a discussion on the Middle East require a Zoroastrian on the panel? Explain to me why the BBC should give equal space to climate sceptics when we represent a tiny minority of what the BBC understands to be informed opinion? Ask yourself the simple question - what benefits do the BBC receive by being biased in favour of AGW? The answer to this was exemplified by what occurred or didn't occur after the Gore and Lawson interviews.

AK, are you really using examples from 45 years ago when the 'establishment' was tory to excuse/justify/explain how unbiased the BBC is now? Can you really not see it or are you argufying? Did you hear that weasel Steve Jones on Feedback justifying the false balance policy? Don't you ever wish for real balance?

Dave S. you should have experienced the Wilson-Heath-Callaghan years* when every BBC news broadcast ended with a list of closures and the number of employees made redundant - talk about political bias.

*but maybe you did and have forgotten.

It's been a while since I last deliberately listened to a BBC news broadcast, although I do scan the headlines on the BBC website fairly frequently simply to catch any significant breaking news. The BBC's relentless bias really revealed itself to me in the mid 1990s in the latter years of the Major government, when the evening news became a long-running party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party. Every public utterance of Blair and Brown was deemed newsworthy, and faithfully reported uncritically. Thus Brown was given a free ride to talk down the UK economy using all kinds of ruses - theŕe was his chalk and cheese comparison of two tables to show an apparent decline relative to other countries (I forget what the metric was); and his bizarre use of a 15-year rolling average to show another decline, where it was later shown (not by the BBC, of course) that choosing other averaging periods gave a different story. Of all the events across the globe, the BBC chose to use their main daily news broadcast to give publicity to Labour Party.

In the late 2000s we had two years of Obama worship. As if the primaries for selecting a candidate for election in the US were really priority news in the UK. The BBC's handling of global warming hysteria doesn't need any further comment here.

Of course, bias is to be found elsewhere. And unless we lead a Good Life lifestyle we contribute indirectly to funding commercial broadcasters whenever we buy anything that's been advertised. But we are obliged to hand over 150 quid to fund the BBC, in return for which we should expect, but manifestly do not get, balance.

SG the BBC normally doesn't broadcast news until it has two independent confirming sources.
Also, why your interest? Typhoons happen all the time in the Pacific, what's so special ( to UK audiences) that you feel the BBC should delete other news items from its schedule to highlight this event?

BBC main news last night included items on 1) Buckingham palace police attack, 2) N. Korea missiles, 3) Rail disruption, 4) Hurricane Harvey preparations 5) Guru rape case riots, 6) Brussels stabbings, 7) Police prioritizing vulnerable + comment on self driving lorries and sports items. I wonder which PCar (his 12.48am.post) would leave out or reduce coverage of in order to get his prime items into the programme. Remind me what they were again. Oh yes A) a US marine is fed up, B) Philly AutiFa [Philly who?) and C) Poland feuding with Macron about costs of makeup.
I think the BBC probably got it about right.