Journalists in democratic countries often aim to construct an impartial and objective voice in their news reporting and in many countries, impartiality is a regulatory requirement for broadcasters. One technique journalists use to achieve this is balance, the practice of quoting opposing views in matters of political significance. Scientists, however, have frequently complained about the use of balance in science journalism, especially in the coverage of climate change. In the United Kingdom, the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, is highly reflexive about the impartiality of its content and for many years was subject to regular impartiality reviews, including of its science output. Yet critics have accused the corporation of ‘false balance’ in giving voice to climate sceptics and failing to give due weight to scientific evidence. This chapter examines the meta-discourse about balance and discusses how it confuses the distinct – and in some ways conflicting – norms of objectivity and impartiality. Taking the example of the long-running criticisms of the BBC's climate coverage, the chapter argues that complaints of false balance, by implying that balance should not be used when reporting science, are associated with appeals to scientific exceptionalism which, if heeded, would place science out of bounds of journalistic scrutiny.