It is worth noting that the BBC were criticised by one of their own correspondents last week (can't remember who) for distorting the reports he was making from Kuwait to make them sound more critical of the coalition than they were intended to be. The Sun got a copy of the memo he sent back to London and printed it (Tuesday I think). The BBC has been going quite liberal/left-wing for some time, even before Gregg Dyke took over though it has got much worse since. Although I am not naturally left-leaning politically, if that is what people want then there will always be a media outlet to voice those views (The Guardian is the stalwart ultra-liberal paper), however when it is state TV that is paid for by ALL consumers irrespective of their political views it has a responsibility to be unbiased. The BBC has for some time been very pro-Arab (though I point out I am neither pro or anti Arab or Israeli, if only it were possible for the to reconcile their differences, but that is another topic) for the past few years and quite biased against every successive Israeli government since Perez.
It must be remembered though, that while Saddam is a pariah in the Arab world, many Arabs are uncomfortable with the war being waged against him and it can only be expected that Al Jazeera will portray that agenda. Whether the BBC should be using it's footage is debatable only in the context of the way in which it positions that footage. If it presents it as the Arab view of an incident after showing footage from CNN/Fox/ABC et al, then it presents a balanced view of cross-cultural opinion from which the viewer can draw their own conclusions. The onus of responsibility then becomes one of editing anything which could be deemed distressful, but if presented to balance one perspective against the other, why not use it? Freedom of speech should also incorporate the right to hear the opinions of an opponent.