I think you're unwittingly proving BBC's point. An objective journalist reports the facts, which means things like who did what to who.
"Calling out" is not compatible with presenting an objective description of the facts. It's the opposite. It's communicating your personal conclusion and trying to attack something you made it your personal target because you disagree in terms of morality.
That's not their responsibility. Their role is not to sneak their personal opinion alongside the objective facts. It's not their role in clear-cut, obvious examples such as a terrorist attack, and it's still not their role in more nuanced topics.
If the reader is able to piece together their own ideas and opinions, why should that be spoon-fed to them?