Forum Topic

BBC Bias ~ Left-Wing Propaganda In Schools

From the Mail on Sunday:“The BBC was accused of 'brainwashing' children after a Mail on Sunday investigation revealed its education website is pushing 'extreme' Left-wing views on migration, Net Zero and inequality to millions of pupils.BBC Bitesize – which is promoted by almost every UK state school – encourages children to play an online game called Increasing Immigration, in which they are rewarded for choosing 'open borders' and granting an amnesty to illegal migrants.The website also suggests that those who voice concerns that migrants will take jobs from local people are 'prejudiced' and makes a string of claims about the economic benefits of migration. Pupils are encouraged to campaign for controversial Net Zero policies and join human rights groups such as Amnesty International – while the website praises the divisive Black Lives Matter movement and Left-wing activists such as Greta Thunberg.Our revelations will fuel allegations of political bias at the broadcaster and follows a series of scandals that have damaged the BBC's reputation, including its doctoring of a Donald Trump speech.BBC director general Matt Brittin has pledged to tackle bias by rolling out technology that monitors how often certain words or phrases are used.Danny Cohen, a former controller of BBC television, last night called for an urgent investigation into our findings.” https://mol.im/a/16217373

Sue Hammond ● 12d52 Comments

Shouldn't everyone be campaigning for net zero??

Michael Brigo ● 12d

Reminds me of thishttps://dailypatriot.co.uk/2026/08/02/heatwave-presenter-neutrality/

Michael Brigo ● 12d

My thoughts,  Michael. Net zero is based on science. There is obviously a debate over when. But how would any sane person consider it left wing? Only capitalists worrying about profits if the don't change their business models to meet the new challenges?

Michael Ixer ● 12d

Mr Brigo'Shouldn't everyone be campaigning for net zero??'A typical Brigo Bitesize reply !Not if they are using other people's money to fund an opinion that not everyone concurs with.And not by indoctrinating children who probably do not have the intellectual ability and certainly not the life experience to weigh up the arguments.For instance what actions (travel ?) or purchases (Chinese imported goods ?) or lifestyle (central heating ?) are you willing to forego as part of your contribution to achieve this goal ?

John Hawkes ● 12d

Mr Ixer'Net zero is based on science. There is obviously a debate over when.'What science ?Do you not understand what the scientific method is ?It is that a hypothesis is put forward, tested and then is proved by it being repeatable with the same result.Has net zero been thus proven ?That is why there is a 'debate over when': so much of the so called evidence is opinion and conjecture. Two weeks ago doom mongers like you were saying "woe is me" because it had not rained for a few weeks.Now it does not seem to have stopped !At least you are not yet predicting the next Ice Age !

John Hawkes ● 12d

You always fall back on "what have you done" but that's not what this thread is about.The point is whether or not the BBC should be promoting the idea of net zero, in my view it should.

Michael Brigo ● 12d

The BBC is a publicly funded organisation which should not promote any agenda.  All media outlets are meant to inform only.

Robert Wheeler ● 12d

Mr Hawkes. Perhaps check your facts; I don’t recall posting anything about the lack of rain, although I suppose the recent weather extremes may be considered additional evidence when collated with other evidence of climate change. Net zero modelling is based on measurements of temperatures, proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, observations in changes of ocean and jet stream circulation changes, etc in line with scientific methods. As all scientific measurements should have an estimated error range then there is bound to be some debates about accuracy of measurements and the models derived from them. Science is always subject to some opinion in formulating and evolving theories. Einstein wasn't comfortable with the statistical nature of quantum theory ("God doesn't play with dice") yet much of our modern technology relies on quantum mechanics whereas Einstein's relatively theories underpin technology such as GPS and nuclear power, and haven't yet been disproven. Fred Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" out of derision to the opponents of his Steady State universe theory; the evidence currently favours an expanding universe from a singularity - although some recent JWST observations and measurements are challenging some of the current early universe theories. Nothing in science is fixed as new information becomes available, we need to modify theories otherwise we'd still belive the Earth was flat and Centre of the universe - but you know that so you're just arguing for the sake of it rather than trying to consider the real problem and its solutions.To be honest, I'd like nothing more than man made global warming to be disproved as we seem to be heading for a future disaster. Some of us acquainted with Piers Corbyn hoped his theory might provide hope of an alternative theory - after all he has a first in physics from IC and an MSc in Astrophysics from QMC. However, it's difficult to discuss his theories as there's nothing (or at least nothing I'm aware of) in detail published as its "proprietary information" used by his Weather Action company. (Something I discussed briefly with Joanna Haigh, a former Head of Physics at Imperial, after a convincing lecture on global warming; her comment in answer to my question was that she'd tried discussing it with him but it's impossible as there's no papers to review ...)Sadly, the current evidence seems to be we'll boil the planet if a solution is determined soon, perhaps it's already too late; anyway, as I'm unlikely to be around in 2050 why should I care ... or, if I am, will I be capable of caring!

Michael Ixer ● 12d

Mr Brigo'You always fall back on "what have you done" but that's not what this thread is about.The point is whether or not the BBC should be promoting the idea of net zero, in my view it should.'Should not the BBC that I am forced to fund be an unbiased deliverer of ranges of opinion ?It is a media organisation and has no particular expertise  in climate or any other science.How would you feel if it promoted the opposing view.Let's face it the concept of the desirability to achieve 'net zero' is not universally accepted by all licence payers.And I think it valid to ask someone like you who is so concerned over the issue what they are personally doing to mitigate it rather than them piously and self-righteously slagging off others more sceptical.

John Hawkes ● 12d

Mr Ixer'although I suppose the recent weather extremes may be considered additional evidence when collated with other evidence of climate change.'Surely the concept of 'recent weather extremes' should be placed in a context over a much, much longer time frame ? Not the last few years.If the climate is changing in one direction who is to say that some time in the future it will not change back again ?Surely modelling is no more than finding some algorithm that  fits what we currently or have recently observed ?Not science in the true sense as I pointed out earlier.And I am not sure your theory gains any credibility when you  rely on a Corbyn to back it up.What does Andy Burnham think ?I assume one of your many scientific friends Ms Haigh agrees with you ? 'Sadly, the current evidence seems to be we'll boil the planet if a solution is determined soon, perhaps it's already too late; anyway,  as I'm unlikely to be around in 2050 why should I care ... or, if I am, will I be capable of caring!'Don't be too despairing.If Haigh and Corbyn can't give you solace perhaps God will step in and correct the mess we humans have made of his planet !

John Hawkes ● 12d

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is clear that limiting temperature rises to a specific level requires net zero greenhouse gas emissions – in other words, deep emissions cuts, and then carbon dioxide removal (technology and nature-based) solutions to absorb remaining emissions. "It's not "an agenda", it's science.

Michael Brigo ● 12d

@ MB It doesn’t matter whether it’s an agenda or a science a license funded broadcaster should be impartial in all broadcasts.

Robert Wheeler ● 12d

I agree Robert. Impartiality went out of the window a long time ago.

Lucille Grant ● 12d

So you are actually suggesting the BBC shouldn't show any science programs?How does that work then?

Michael Brigo ● 12d

Are you actually saying the BBC can’t show a programme that isn’t impartial?

Robert Wheeler ● 12d

I'm just unsure how there are two sides to accepted science?

Michael Brigo ● 12d

Michael. One might have to be careful in some parts of the US. I know someone involved in producing educational books for children. I don't think they can market some in the US as they explain Darwin's theory of evolution but they don't mention "intelligent design" or Genesis ... 

Michael Ixer ● 12d

Professor Joanna Haigh CBE, FRS (a former Head of IC Physics and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Physics at Imperial College and and former co-director of the Grantham Institute – Climate Change and Environment, and former president of the Royal Meteorological Society) as well as Emeritus Professor David Southwood (another former Head of IC Physics and also one time ESA Director of Science) might be surprised by your denial of climate change modelling being scientific. Mathematical models are used frequently in astrophysics to understand phenomenon such as black holes, stellar evolution, formation of planetary evolution, to understand their science and form scientific theories about them - and also climatology but I can't be bothered to argue as it's of little consequence to me personally. (Yes, I have spoken to both of them after attending lectures but I don't know either well enough to say they're "friends".)I'm not despondent, I just think it's unfortunate that the human race might be heading towards a situation that will be difficult to recover from. Unfortunately, there's no god to help save the situation ...It is worth noting that measures to mitigate climate change would also help the environment by reducing pollution, etc creatinga better, cleaner world? Yes, there will be another ice age but not for around 1×10⁴-5×10⁴ years.. Mr Google thinks global warming might delay it by 10⁵years. Some think the whole universe will go cold and dark in the around 10¹⁰⁰ year. Anyway, a couple of views on scientific modelling:https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-modelinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling

Michael Ixer ● 12d

Mr Brigo'So you are actually suggesting the BBC shouldn't show any science programs?'Another of your non sequiturs I'm afraid.The issue is not that the BBC should NOT show science programs but that as a news media it should show programs that present all arguments.It is not qualified to state which side of any argument is correct and which is not.

John Hawkes ● 12d

Mr BrigoYou state - 'The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is clear that limiting temperature rises to a specific level requires net zero greenhouse gas emissions – in other words, deep emissions cuts, and then carbon dioxide removal (technology and nature-based) solutions to absorb remaining emissions'.But read how the IPCC works.'The IPCC evaluates thousands of scientific studies to produce comprehensive assessments of climate change, its impacts, risks, and possible mitigation and adaptation strategies. It does not conduct original research; instead, it synthesizes existing scientific literature'Note it does not conduct research but 'synthesizes existing scientific literature'.IE it publishes an opinion based upon the opinions of others on the topic.And the key issue is that opinions of these 'experts' are not unanimous in their conclusion.

John Hawkes ● 12d

Mr Brigo'I'm just unsure how there are two sides to accepted science?'As I have pointed out the issue of net zero and climate change is NOT accepted science.It is often conjecture and varying opinion.Many scientists disagree with the position you have taken.

John Hawkes ● 12d

I rarely watch the BBC because of its bias but whenever I have I am annoyed that certain news presenters spout their own political opinions.  The woman with the huge ears, Naga(?) is the worst offender.  Presenters are there to pass on the facts of a newsworthy event, that is all, and not to try and become a minor celebrity.

Sue Hammond ● 12d

If it was 50/50, or 60/40 or even 70/30 I might agree with you.But it's not. Its 97% of scientists vs 3%.There's absolutely no point in me continuing the discussion, if you don't believe in science then i'm afraid there's no point in debating you any further.Next you'll be telling me that a significant number of people believe the earth is flat and the BBC should present both sides of that argument.Have a nice evening :)

Michael Brigo ● 12d

The problem, Michael, is that you equate opinion with fact, so that what others see as biased propaganda you regards as scientific truth.Even if it were proved beyond doubt that a) the climate is changing for the worse b) the change is due to harmful emissions and c) the solution is for the planet to adopt net zero (all of which are probable theories rather than incontrovertible facts), it still would not follow that the UK should rush to net zero at the risk of impoverishing the population, especially when the UK is responsible for less than 1% of global emissions, rather than taking a more measured approach to green energyThe BBC has no right to indoctrinate the nation's youth with a tendentious viewpoint on the climate any more than it should be broadcasting propaganda on the merits of open borders or the virtues of Black Lives Matter (for which the children also got points).

Steven Rose ● 12d

So you don't actually agree with UK laws either:https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

Philippa Bond ● 12d

I don't agree with Labour's rush to net zero, which has resulted in some of the highest electricity prices in Europe because of green levies, and cost jobs in North Sea oil drilling, even though the UK continues to import oil from abroad.

Steven Rose ● 12d

Mr Brigo'But it's not. Its 97% of scientists vs 3%.'Which community of scientists are you referring to ?Who made the survey ?'There's absolutely no point in me continuing the discussion, if you don't believe in science then i'm afraid there's no point in debating you any further'.I have a degree in Chemistry from Oxford and so I do 'believe in science' (whatever that might mean).But my studies also more importantly I think taught me to question statements from people or organisations that claim definitive understanding of complex, imprecise and difficult to prove topics such as global warming and man's part in causing it.'Next you'll be telling me that a significant number of people believe the earth is flat and the BBC should present both sides of that argument'.Now you are being silly Mr Brigo.I can't claim to be the first person to declare a belief the earth is round and not flat.Aristotle was the first person known to deduce that the Earth is round in the 4th century B.C., using observations of Earth’s curved shadow during lunar eclipses and changes in visible constellations with latitude.I might take on an Italian like yourself in scientific debate but not the great Greek 😁.Now we all accept the fact.

John Hawkes ● 12d

This whole argument about whether the BBC should not publish on supposedly contentious issues is frankly absurd: if accepted, it would necessitate having, for example, two presenters dealing with the planet, one who argued that the earth was round and the opposer arguing that it was flat. Unfortunately, there seem to be rather a number of flat earthers posting on this thread.

Richard Carter ● 11d

John, sorry to correct you, but while Aristotle was the first to provide evidence that the earth is round, it was Parmenides and possibly Pythagoras who first conjectured that the earth is a sphere.Richard. you are missing the point. The argument is not about whether net zero is a good thing but about how and how fast to achieve it. There are divergent views on this which the BBC has a duty to reflect. Brainwashing children on this and other issues is not right and in any case contrary to the BBC Charter.

Steven Rose ● 11d

Good morning Steven,Have you, or has anyone else, watched the Bitesize programme?  I could not find it.  What age group was the programme for? 5 year olds, 11 year olds, 16 year olds?Hand in heart, I do not believe everything that the Daily Mail says ao I take it with a pinch of salt.  Has this issue been reported in any other media? On another matter altogether, it is of interest to note that there is a petition for the removal of Chris Mason for his right wing views....

Ivonne Holliday ● 11d

Mr Carter'This whole argument about whether the BBC should not publish on supposedly contentious is frankly absurd: if accepted, it would necessitate having, for example, two presenters dealing with the planet, one who argued that the earth was round and the opposer arguing that it was flat'.Faulty analysis again.A Mr Brigo-like non-sequitur.The issue is that the BBC should publish especially for children, material on contentious and unproven subjects that is editorially balanced ie not biased and gives both sides of the argument.The point being made here is that what was published was seen to be prescriptive giving the impression that the BBC was trying to influence what children should think on the topic. 'Unfortunately, there seem to be rather a number of flat earthers posting on this thread'Name them if that is what you believe.

John Hawkes ● 11d

Ivonne, if you google ' Mail bitesize bbc', you will see one of the cartoons published on Bitesize, demonstrating pro-immigration bias.I don't understand criticism of Chris Mason who, unlike some of his former colleagues, is studiously impartial.

Steven Rose ● 11d

Hello Steven, As suggested, I Googled "Mail bitesize bbc" and found the cartoon totally inapprorpiate.I tried to find it in BBC Bitesize and could not see it.  I looked for other media reporting it and could not find it either.As for Chris Mason, I think he is a very good reporter.  Many people find him and Laura Kuenssberg too pro-Reform.So, is the BBC too left-wing or too right-wing?  It cannot be both.  But, on the whole, I find the BBC a trustworthy media compared to Sky, GB, the Daily Mail and others.

Ivonne Holliday ● 10d

Margaret Thatcher knew about and understood man's effect on the climate.  She was a scientist and talked about it and how we would have make changes.

Philippa Bond ● 10d

Philippa, you’re posting in the wrong thread again!

Sue Hammond ● 10d

@IvonneI think we’ve all realised for years that you are besotted with the BBC and will never acknowledge any of its failings, even the really big gaffes. I have to admit I don’t watch the mainstream broadcast news much but when I do I never see any bias towards Reform.  Quite the opposite.

Sue Hammond ● 10d

The usual b*ll*cks about the BBC: right-leaning people complain that it's biased to the left, and left-leaning  people complain it's biased to the right (remember the arguments Blair's government had with it?). Which suggests to me that, on the whole, it's not biased at all.

Richard Carter ● 9d

Ms Holliday'But, on the whole, I find the BBC a trustworthy media compared to Sky, GB, the Daily Mail and others'.Do you think the Guardian is trustworthy or does it pour out left wing views and comment ?

John Hawkes ● 9d

Mr Carter'Which suggests to me that, on the whole, it's not biased at all'.I concede it does its best.Was a bit slow in exposing the Pakistani Muslim paedophile rings sexually assaulting young British white girls but did not shirk in exposing the Kurdish lawyer caught offering to make illegal-worker fine go away."Lawyer caught offering to make illegal-worker fine go away"'A solicitor has been secretly filmed by the BBC explaining how he could make a £45,000 illegal-working fine go away.Mohammad Alias Yousaf - also known as Alias - made the claim to an undercover reporter, who was posing as a mini-mart owner facing a fine for employing an illegal worker.The Bradford-based solicitor told his potential client he could avoid paying the fine, if he could find someone overseas prepared to declare themselves the owner of the mini-mart.'https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2wl6ynn2noWhy was a Kurd allowed to reside in the UK ?Oh of course: fleeing political persecution !

John Hawkes ● 9d

I am not sure the fact that the BBC gets complaints of both right wing and left wing bias proves that it is doing a good job. The BBC is not supposed to provide a mix of right and left wing views in the manner of LBC. Under its Charter the BBC is supposed to be impartial. This is sometimes difficult to achieve but at the very least news and current affairs should refrain from expressing their personal views. Unfortunately in recent years some of the presenters have ignored this basic rule. Emily Maitlis and Nick Robinson, for example, made no effort to conceal their contempt for Boris Johnson. The current Director General has thankfully imposed greater professionalism on his staff.

Steven Rose ● 9d

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/kemi-badenochs-climate-scepticism-a-growing-problem-for-the-conservative-party-and-its-voters/It's a growing problem for everyone together with other right wing propaganda following the lack of Previous Govt action to increase the insulation of buildings and push forward faster with the introduction of more renewables and improved grid.

Philippa Bond ● 9d

Your response is almost comically predictable. Did Maitlis and Robinson made no effort to conceal their contempt for Boris Johnson? I'd have to take your word that your memory for that was accurate, but do you imagine that comnentators gave the kid glove treatment to Corbyn when he was Labour leader? I don't think so, and the fact you pick on one but not the other just illustrates your own right wing perspective.

Richard Carter ● 8d

You don’t have to take my word about Nick Robinson, Richard. Robinson himself apologised for telling Boris Johnson, then Prime Minister, to ‘stop talking’ while he was attempting to answer a question on ‘Today’. As for Emily Maitlis, the BBC itself said she was ‘completely wrong’ for telling ‘Newsnight’ viewers that Dominic Cummings had ‘broken the rules’.  Thankfully Robinson has recently resisted the temptation to make self-important assertions and Maitlis has been moved on. On the other hand I cannot remember a single occasion  when Jeremy Corbyn was treated disrespectfully or when BBC presenters took it upon themselves to editorialise about his policies.

Steven Rose ● 8d

"I cannot remember a single occasion  when Jeremy Corbyn was treated disrespectfully or when BBC presenters took it upon themselves to editorialise about his policies"So, conveniently, you're able to remember examples of supposed left-wing bias on the BBC but not right-wing bias. Why am I not surprised at this?

Richard Carter ● 8d

Surely the whole point of this thread is impartiality.

Robert Wheeler ● 8d

Well, yes, but true impartiality is impossible in practice: how, for example, would it be possible to be truly impartial in the face of climate breakdown, or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to take just two examples?

Richard Carter ● 8d

Mr Carter'So, conveniently, you're able to remember examples of supposed left-wing bias on the BBC but not right-wing bias. Why am I not surprised at this?'In that case you give us some examples of BBC right wing bias.

John Hawkes ● 8d

Mr Carter'Well, yes, but true impartiality is impossible in practice: how, for example, would it be possible to be truly impartial in the face of climate breakdown, or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to take just two examples?'Or as a third example be impartial over the world wide rampant antisemitism that is taking place and the physical and media attacks on Israel and its right to exist, some on this Forum, that are a daily occurrence.Are you impartial on this issue ?

John Hawkes ● 8d

I was going to ask the same question, Richard. Can you give any examples of when Jeremy Corbyn was treated badly by the BBC?  My impression is that he was always treated courteously. For example, in March this year he was invited to take part in a discussion on ‘Politics Live’. This was somewhat surprising given that he had been criticised by the Equality and Human Rights for his failure as Labour Leader to protect party members from antisemitic discrimination. He was then suspended by Keir Starmer for his refusal to accept that the party under his leadership had acted unlawfully. Would a politician who had been expelled by his party for racist behaviour be invited to speak on a BBC programme? Presumably the BBC doesn’t think antisemitism is as bad as anti-black racism.

Steven Rose ● 8d

Mr Rose'I was going to ask the same question, Richard. Can you give any examples of when Jeremy Corbyn was treated badly by the BBC?'Funny how Mr Carter with similar strong views on Israel and Jews should be defending Corbyn who was kicked out of the Labour Party for antisemitism.

John Hawkes ● 7d

Well at least it isn't promoting white supremacy and Islamophobia!

Philippa Bond ● 6d

Ms Bond'Well at least it isn't promoting white supremacy and Islamophobia!;I assume you mean the BBC.Which media outlet is doing so ?"Islamophobia, also referred to as anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic sentiment, is the irrational fear of, hostility towards, or hatred of the religion of Islam or Muslims in general. Islamophobia is characterised as a form of religious or cultural bigotry in which Muslims are stereotyped as a geopolitical threat or a source of terrorism.'The problem with this definition is that there are numerous examples of terrorism and murder carried out in the name of Islam to support a case that the fear is NOT irrational.Collectively such Islamism as propounded by Islamic groups such as Hamas does represent a geopolitical threat and has proved to be so in its attitude to Jews and Western social norms in general. Of course this does not apply to the majority of Muslims in the UK nor probably worldwide.But the atmosphere generated by extremist does make many fear them and hence the religion that drives them.

John Hawkes ● 6d