I've always said that the fact that both the Right and the Left accuse the BBC of the most extreme bias says that they're probably pretty balanced on the whole.
I've often heard that argument, but the real issue is that the BBC (and many news broadcasters, GBNews being the exception) do not challenge either Government or Opposition spokesmen to the same extent on a topic. Further, the broadcasters used to report facts - now they are more opiniated. A classic is climate change debate - has it ever been fully established that it is a real concern; there is never any contrary view offered.
With regards to the main programmrs, yes the BBC does excel at some programmes, as do other channels - Killing Eve, Downton etc.(yes I know Downton is ITV, but I did say other broadcadtrts as well) If they are so good, why are they not funded by overseas sales or by putting on a pay channel? Likewise, programmes with high salaried presenters should either have their costs trimmed, or again be on a pay channel if they are so good. There is a lot of waste at the BBC- I'm sure W1A was probably close to the mark - and I think it was said that the BBC sent more people to the Seoul Olympics than we sent competitors.
Some of the radio programmes could turn commercial if they were in sufficient demand.
Some programmes will never make money, but there is a need for them - the News being a case in point, but these programmes should be limited to the I nform, Educate Entertain original principles of the BBC. These should be funded by a smaller licence fee, but the skill is in defining which programmes these are, the amount of airtime they should get, and how to ensure that they are honest and not biased. Inevitably, these will be a smaller number of programmes and channels than currently exist.