Death to ... er, Glastonbury?!

Glastonbury and the BBC are basically like academia. Unashamedly biased, and having little time but much contempt for non-leftists.
   Every now and then something egregious hits the headlines. (The latest: pop group calls for "death to IDF", and BBC@Glastonbury broadcasts it without censoring.) The Right's response these days? Fight fire with fire. If the Left already suppresses what it dislikes by use of aggressive policing, we should do it too. Invade academia with neutrality commissars! Fire the head of the BBC! Ban Glastonbury!
   In spite of such occasional eruptions of outrage against the BBC, or universities, the whole 'liberal' regime rumbles on. Water off a duck's butt.
   Trying to impose neutrality on leftist middle-class institutions seems pointless. A better approach would be to let them become gradually marginalised, by withdrawing state support.
   Pop acts trying to make it are always going to be tempted to use a bit of controversy as a way of getting attention. I remember the fuss about the Sex Pistols' number one hit God Save the Queen, which the BBC banned, making the song seem even more exciting.
   It's a shame the choice of controversy is biased: calling for death to the IDF is apparently controversial in the 'right' way, while the same call for the PLO isn't. A bit of balance slash pluralism slash neutrality would be nice, when it comes to hate speech that passes the censors.
   And how did poor Keir Starmer get to be on a par with "Reform, transphobia, selling arms, gammons, justifying genocide, JK Rowling, and Nigel f***ing Farage", in liberals' current list of approved hate objects?