Is the BBC being biased?

“A split in the spectrum? The ongoing battle to define autism” is the BBC’s title for an article last month about Autism, and to me it looks like they are breaking their own impartiality rules.

The BBC’s rules are contentious, as some believe that rather than being fair, they spread misinformation. When tackling a topic, say climate change, they will give equal air time in their documentary to both sides of the arguement, despite the great majority of climate scientists saying that there is a human cntribution to global warming. This can give a false impression that humans are not contributing to global warming, despite the wealth of evidence to the opposite.

That was background information. How does this apply to neurodivergence, and in particular to the recent BBC In Depth article?

I can’t think why it was so wring this time, the journalist, Catherine Burns, did such a good job in an article from 2024 on ADHD, yet here it is different. She mentions the National Autistic Soceity (NAS) saying, “evidence suggests there is a significant underdiagnosis of autism, particularly among women and older people.” Yes, the number of people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has risen from 700,000 to 1.1 million in three years and will rise further, according to the NAS. But as soon as it is mentioned, the NAS view is discarded in favour of asking only one autism researcher her views. Only one view. Where is the balance of the ADHD article?

The NAS has responded to the paper. It strongly disagrees with Dame Frith’s sugestions. Here’s why.

• Higher diagnosis numbers stem from greater public and professional awareness rather than a loss of clinical meaning or widespread misdiagnosis.
• Theories proposing new autism subtypes lack clinical or diagnostic use and risk increasing stigma, misinterpretation, and barriers to care.
• Autism remains a spectrum because every autistic person has a unique combination of characteristics and distinct support needs rather than fitting on a simple linear scale.
• Resources should focus on addressing chronic inequalities, cutting assessment wait times, and delivering early, tailored support instead of re-dividing the diagnostic criteria.

I am not dismissing Dame Uta Friths views on this, unlike the way the BBC dismissed other views, that is why I have left links to various documents. Click the links, read and make your own minds up.