Brexit bias? No, Ofcom’s first BBC probe is into climate change denial

MEDIA watchdog Ofcom has announced its first probe into the BBC since taking over as its regulator in April.

But rather than looking at allegations of political bias or graphic scenes of ‘traumatising’ violence, it will concentrate on a row about climate change.

It will investigate whether Radio 4’s Today programme broke its broadcasting code during an interview with Lord Lawson.

The former Chancellor had claimed that ‘official figures’ revealed that ‘during this past ten years, if anything... average world temperature has slightly declined’. This view, which was not challenged on air, was then denounced by the Met Office who said it was ‘simply not true’. The broadcaster initially hit back at complaints by pointing out that Lord Lawson was simply offering an alternative opinion – an essential aspect of impartiality. But it later agreed his claims ‘should have been challenged’. Yesterday Ofcom announced it was investigating the issue.

In March, more than 70 MPs wrote to the corporation warning that its ‘perverse and skewed’ political coverage risked undermining Brexit. And in October, Gunpowder, a BBC1 dramatisation of the Guy Fawkes plot, was branded ‘disgusting’ and ‘traumatising’ due to its graphic torture scenes.

The Ofcom investigation follows an incident in 2014, when the BBC found the Today programme in breach for another interview with Lord Lawson about climate change.

A spokesman for Ofcom said: ‘We are investigating whether this interview, which followed a similar interview in 2014, breached our rules on due accuracy and due impartiality.’ Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: ‘ Given the numerous genuine concerns that have been flagged to Ofcom that they have declined to investigate, it would appear that, in their breathless pursuit of Lord Lawson, the regulator of the BBC has already gone native.’

A BBC spokesman said: ‘We have already acknowledged that we should have challenged some of Lord Lawson’s statements more robustly. We recognise the weight of scientific consensus on climate change.’