I watch it a lot and it is a lot more unbiased than the likes of the BBC.
Objectively, no it isn't.
The BBC Charter outlines its activity as a public service broadcaster. It explicitly mentions editorial independence and political impartiality; granted only in reference to domestic British issues but still, that's a damn sight closer to empirical impartiality than RT is. It's a statutory corporation; by the very nature of being a statutory corporation it is separate from any political administration. Quite aside from which, as I've already mentioned, it's a public service broadcaster. The primary stakeholder are license fee payers. There are innumerate examples of direct disagreement over public interest issues between the UK government and BBC- Hutton, the Zircon affair, the Sinn Féin broadcasting ban, Butler, Balen report, et cetera. Frequent inquiries take place, particularly surrounding controversial events, which assess whether the BBC is keeping to the impartiality clause of its charter. The fact is that the BBC is accused of favouritism and bias by all sides in pretty much all situations, the most obvious example being Israel-Palestine, where both sides accuse it of bias in favour of the other. Generally, that's a reasonably good indicator of an organisation being impartial; if all sides claim bias then chances are no-one is right.
RT was established by mandate from RIA-Novosti, which at the time was directly under control of the Russian Ministry of Communications and Mass Media. It was concocted solely for the purpose of presenting current affairs with a pro-Russian stance, at the behest of Vladimir Putin in order to improve Russia's overseas image in the wake of various economic, military and political crises in the 1990s and early 2000s. Putin is on the record as saying that the channel "cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position"
, which is as good as saying that it presents exactly what the Russian government wishes it to. Choices of guests for current affairs shows include conspiracy theorists, the leader of the New Black Panther party Hashim Nzinga and two anti-Semitic white power militia leaders, Jim Stachowiak and Jared Taylor. It has been subject to scathing criticism from Reporters Without Borders for being effectively a mass-media propaganda engine for the Russian government. During the 2008 South Ossetia conflict, William Dunbar publicly resigned from RT (then Russia Today) because they explicitly forbade him from covering Russian airstrikes on Georgian civilians that killed or wounded over 100 people. Lizzie Phelan and the station were reprimanded for two breaches of conduct by Ofcom in relation to false reporting from Libya. Liz Wahl publicly resigned as RT news anchor after being forced to tow the Russian government line in respect of their illegal invasion of Crimea and the publication of inaccurate statements alleging links between Ukrainian political opposition figures and far-right militias, accusing the station on-air of producing propaganda and censoring her reporting on Crimea.
Compare and contrast.
Also, I think you meant "less biased" rather than "more unbiased".