Is the BBC impartial?

The BBC recently featured a United Nations report which claimed the Earth’s ‘Energy Balance’ was dangerously disrupted by excess heat caused by rising carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. This is false for many reasons, but rather than explain why, I want to discuss the BBC.

This story was on the evening news and also on the BBC website. I was curious about people’s response and read many of the comments posted online. The majority were worried and adamant that we must ‘do something before it is too late’. I wanted to reassure people that there is nothing happening to the climate that could be described as a crisis and carbon dioxide is not the control knob of planetary weather patterns. I decided it was best to direct people towards some of the world’s leading physicists rather than attempt to explain it myself. This is what I tried to post on the BBC website:

“May I respectfully suggest that everyone worried about a man-made climate crisis do some research. I recommend the work of Prof Richard Lindzen, Prof William Happer, Prof Willie Soon, Nobel Laureate John Clauser and the CO2 Coalition. Most people don’t realise how much we are all manipulated by vested interests including the mainstream media. Be smarter than most and learn from world experts.”

The website moderators informed me that my post had been deleted because it broke their house rules: “We reserve the right to fail comments which...
Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others, are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable; Contain swear words or other language likely to offend”

I appealed their decision, not because I expected them to change their minds, but because it gave me the opportunity to ask them to identify which part of my post they considered to be ‘sexist, racist, homophobic or abusive’. This was their response. ‘In this instance, we believe the moderator made the correct decision so we will be unable to uphold your appeal. Due to the volume of correspondence we receive, we are unable to discuss this matter further.’

They were confident the ‘rules’ had been broken but would not tell me which part of my message transgressed which part of their rules. I didn’t express an opinion about the climate but suggested that the opinion of world-renowned specialist scientists was worth reading. Did the BBC object to this, or was it my reference to manipulation by the mainstream media? I included that comment in reference to the BBC’s Environmental Correspondent, Justin Rowlatt, who was found to have lied about the climate in a 2022 BBC Panorama programme called Wild Weather. A newspaper report said, ‘The programme Wild Weather, presented by climate editor Justin Rowlatt, said deaths worldwide were rising due to extreme weather caused by climate change – whereas the opposite is true.’

The BBC’s Charter states that, ‘The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.’

The Public Purposes of the BBC are, ‘To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them.’

When it comes to coverage of the climate the BBC are not impartial, high-quality or informative. In this case, they have blocked an opportunity for people to discover high-quality scientific research from around the world. I am firmly of the opinion that I am not the one breaking rules; it is the BBC who are ignoring their own rules and charter.