Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bubbles on January 31, 2016, 11:03:22 AM
-
It doesn't matter how hard you try, you can't please everyone.
Some will always think the balance is wrong.
Some people argue there is too much religion and religiously motivated programmes on the BBC, others that there is not enough.
In this link the blogger is grumbling about the atheist influence at the BBC.
Do you think he is making a good point, that it needs to b challenged ? Or talking nonsense and bemoaning days past when more people claimed to be Christian ?
http://www.ukapologetics.net/10/BBCatheism.htm
How could the BBC improve? ( well apart from reinstate the messageboards)
Does the BBC need to address the balance?
-
The BBC is a public service broadcaster with a remit to offer a range of material covering the widest possible audience.
That blog post was merely the maunderings of a crank with a grudge (a creationist, of course) bewailing the fact that in British society religion is a minority interest and is becoming even more so, something like naked speed chess only not quite as popular. It was in short merely a whine, a sort of "I'm being ignored!" bleat. Well no; the BBC's religious output is extensive - far more so, many would say, than its actual audience justifies. We even have a God-slot crowbarred into the middle of a serious and much-admired news and current affairs programme, for goodness' sake. That the writer of this swivel-eyed rant is an utter doofus can be ascertained by the fact that he genuinely seems to believe that any programme which contains somebody known to be an atheist therefore makes it a programme promoting or promulgating atheism. Yes, seriously, that's the acme of his intellectual endowment - a cookery programme presented by Nigella Lawson (an atheist) is a front for the BBC's espousal of atheism.
The fact that that mess is five years old means that its statistics are by now woefully out of date, so the crowing about 70% of the population purporting to adhere to Christianity is no longer the case. (Actually it wasn't then either, but that's for another thread).
It isn't the background that should have been green but the writing, since it comes over as a missive from one of the green ink brigade. Read once and ignore thereafter.
-
a cookery programme presented by Nigella Lawson (an atheist) is a front for the BBC's espousal of atheism.
Nigella an atheist? That surprises me given the generosity of her Rum Babas.
-
Nigella an atheist? That surprises me given the generosity of her Rum Babas.
Trust you to have your eyes on her Rum Babas ;)
No wonder you never noticed she's an atheist.
-
Trust you to have your eyes on her Rum Babas ;)
No wonder you never noticed she's an atheist.
Perhaps they could get Nigella and Delia together......
Roman Catholic Delia could make a starter of curate's egg and Nigella could provide atheist waffle.
-
Dearest Forum,
Roman Catholic Delia could make a starter of curate's egg and Nigella could provide atheist waffle.
Come on, now that's funny ;D ;D
Gonnagle.
-
Perhaps they could get Nigella and Delia together......
Roman Catholic Delia could make a starter of curate's egg and Nigella could provide atheist waffle.
Oh dear! it must be my mind.
I was a bit concerned at your first sentence and my mind took a tangent :-[
I better go sit on the naughty step 🌹
Blame it on the Rum Babas ::)
-
Perhaps they could get Nigella and Delia together......
Roman Catholic Delia could make a starter of curate's egg and Nigella could provide atheist waffle.
Funny you should mention curate's egg.
It's a bit like your posts, both good and bad qualities ....sadly..... without any off the 'good'. ::)
-
Funny you should mention curate's egg.
It's a bit like your posts, both good and bad qualities ....sadly..... without any off the 'good'. ::)
Well, it made Mr G and meself smile and after all......that's what counts.
-
It doesn't matter how hard you try, you can't please everyone.
Some will always think the balance is wrong.
Some people argue there is too much religion and religiously motivated programs on the BBC, others that there is not enough.
In this link the blogger is grumbling about the atheist influence at the BBC.
Do you think he is making a good point, that it needs to b challenged ? Or talking nonsense and bemoaning days past when more people claimed to be Christian ?
http://www.ukapologetics.net/10/BBCatheism.htm
How could the BBC improve? ( well apart from reinstate the messageboards)
Does the BBC need to address the balance?
There is a BBC Religion & Ethics Department in Manchester, running at about £10,000,000 pa.
See if you can find any program designated as life from a Humanist Secularist viewpoint that is unchallenged, whereas there's a plethora of religion based programs that go to air freely and unchallenged almost whenever the religious want them.
Yes occasionally the BBC put out a program such as Jonathan Miller's one about atheism, some time back, but so what it's swamped over and over again by unchallenged religion all over the BBC's various TV and radio out puts, try Radio 4 from midnight Sunday right through its 24 hours.
In effect the way the BBC R & E Department acts something like as if we had Conservative Central Office editing the output of anything the Labour party wanted to put out on air
Of course it's right and proper that the BBC should cater for the now only 50% of religious viewers and listeners, but whether it's like it or not the non-religious are here and should be getting somewhere near a similar amount of unchallenged airtime.
Atheists and secularists do get to be on air on challenging programs with the religious, not that it matters if the non-religious are challenged we can deal with anything the religious throw at us, but the why, is always there in the background, the religious can give out more or less as many unchallenged programmes as they want to, when do we get anything like a similar quantity of unchallenged output for the non-religious from the BBC?
ippy
-
Well, it made Mr G and meself smile and after all......that's what counts.
And me :)
-
And me :)
Sorry Rose for forgetting. :-[
-
There is a BBC Religion & Ethics Department in Manchester, running at about £10,000,000 pa.
See if you can find any program designated as life from a Humanist Secularist viewpoint that is unchallenged, whereas there's a plethora of religion based programs that go to air freely and unchallenged almost whenever the religious want them.
Yes occasionally the BBC put out a program such as Jonathan Miller's one about atheism, some time back, but so what it's swamped over and over again by unchallenged religion all over the BBC's various TV and radio out puts, try Radio 4 from midnight Sunday right through its 24 hours.
In effect the way the BBC R & E Department acts something like as if we had Conservative Central Office editing the output of anything the Labour party wanted to put out on air
Of course it's right and proper that the BBC should cater for the now only 50% of religious viewers and listeners, but whether it's like it or not the non-religious are here and should be getting somewhere near a similar amount of unchallenged airtime.
Atheists and secularists do get to be on air on challenging programs with the religious, not that it matters if the non-religious are challenged we can deal with anything the religious throw at us, but the why, is always there in the background, the religious can give out more or less as many unchallenged programmes as they want to, when do we get anything like a similar quantity of unchallenged output for the non-religious from the BBC?
ippy
The problem is as well I think that some religious people see programmes like Eastenders and father ted as non religious. Eastenders because it has a secular setting.
Because it hasn't got a Christian message behind it, and Father Ted is a comedy.
I think it no longer matters if the BBC doesn't cater so much for religion anymore because most of us have free veiw and there are whole channels that dedicate all their air time to religious matters.
It mattered more when we had only four or five channels to watch.
I like some of the programmes the BBC make that tell you about other religions or archeology and what they have found.
The thing is if it was representative, what about Islamic religious programmes?
I think we have so many channels to choose from now, we don't need that many religious programmes.
That could apply to sport too.
Most of the big matches are now on Sky anyway.
-
Seb,
Funny you should mention curate's egg.
It's a bit like your posts, both good and bad qualities ....sadly..... without any off the 'good'. ::)
Actually you're closer to the truth than you might think. "Curate's egg" meaning "good in parts" is a misnomer. The point of the story was that after giving the sermon a curate was invited for lunch where he was served an egg that was bad - all bad; an egg cannot be just a bit bad.
When asked by his host what he thought of his lunch the curate replied, "Oh, good in parts" so as not to cause offence. It's a euphemism though for "all bad" despite the common (mis)usage.
-
There is a BBC Religion & Ethics Department in Manchester, running at about £10,000,000 pa.
See if you can find any program designated as life from a Humanist Secularist viewpoint that is unchallenged, whereas there's a plethora of religion based programs that go to air freely and unchallenged almost whenever the religious want them.
Yes occasionally the BBC put out a program such as Jonathan Miller's one about atheism, some time back, but so what it's swamped over and over again by unchallenged religion all over the BBC's various TV and radio out puts, try Radio 4 from midnight Sunday right through its 24 hours.
In effect the way the BBC R & E Department acts something like as if we had Conservative Central Office editing the output of anything the Labour party wanted to put out on air
Of course it's right and proper that the BBC should cater for the now only 50% of religious viewers and listeners, but whether it's like it or not the non-religious are here and should be getting somewhere near a similar amount of unchallenged airtime.
Atheists and secularists do get to be on air on challenging programs with the religious, not that it matters if the non-religious are challenged we can deal with anything the religious throw at us, but the why, is always there in the background, the religious can give out more or less as many unchallenged programmes as they want to, when do we get anything like a similar quantity of unchallenged output for the non-religious from the BBC?
ippy
But let's face it, Jonathan Miller was never nasty to believers whereas Dawkins started out to be seen to be.
I'm sure Jim Al Khalili would make a great fist at presenting what is after all a great world faith and belief.
Atheist Bamber Gascoigne made a great and classic effort at presenting Christianity.
I think though that anybody reasonable wouldn't go down well with you guys who now prefer Secular Humanist to be more WWF smackdown with violence and menaces than a civilised exchange.
-
There is a BBC Religion & Ethics Department in Manchester, running at about £10,000,000 pa.
See if you can find any program designated as life from a Humanist Secularist viewpoint that is unchallenged, whereas there's a plethora of religion based programs that go to air freely and unchallenged almost whenever the religious want them.
Yes occasionally the BBC put out a program such as Jonathan Miller's one about atheism, some time back, but so what it's swamped over and over again by unchallenged religion all over the BBC's various TV and radio out puts, try Radio 4 from midnight Sunday right through its 24 hours.
In effect the way the BBC R & E Department acts something like as if we had Conservative Central Office editing the output of anything the Labour party wanted to put out on air
Of course it's right and proper that the BBC should cater for the now only 50% of religious viewers and listeners, but whether it's like it or not the non-religious are here and should be getting somewhere near a similar amount of unchallenged airtime.
Atheists and secularists do get to be on air on challenging programs with the religious, not that it matters if the non-religious are challenged we can deal with anything the religious throw at us, but the why, is always there in the background, the religious can give out more or less as many unchallenged programmes as they want to, when do we get anything like a similar quantity of unchallenged output for the non-religious from the BBC?
ippy
We have to ask ourselves then why secular humanism has not opened it's own TV channel and why the Sunday Assembly has not requested an airing on National TV.
Of course it could be argued that the Big Question is run by one of the biggest secular humanists in broadcasting Nicky Campbell.
-
Seb,
Actually you're closer to the truth than you might think. "Curate's egg" meaning "good in parts" is a misnomer. The point of the story was that after giving the sermon a curate was invited for lunch where he was served an egg that was bad - all bad; an egg cannot be just a bit bad.
When asked by his host what he thought of his lunch the curate replied, "Oh, good in parts" so as not to cause offence. It's a euphemism though for "all bad" despite the common (mis)usage.
Don't reply to this......you'll only be egging him on.
-
Don't reply to this......you'll only be egging him on.
You're ova doing the puns now Vlad.
ippy
-
You're ova doing the puns now Vlad.
ippy
10/10 for that one ipples :D
-
It doesn't matter how hard you try, you can't please everyone.
Some will always think the balance is wrong.
Some people argue there is too much religion and religiously motivated programmes on the BBC, others that there is not enough.
In this link the blogger is grumbling about the atheist influence at the BBC.
Do you think he is making a good point, that it needs to b challenged ? Or talking nonsense and bemoaning days past when more people claimed to be Christian ?
http://www.ukapologetics.net/10/BBCatheism.htm
How could the BBC improve? ( well apart from reinstate the messageboards)
Does the BBC need to address the balance?
I don't see that he has a case, to be honest. He suggests that Lord Attenborough's broadcasts are 'atheist' in nature, when in fact they are merely scientific, they have nothing to say for or against religion. I can't think of any explicitly atheist broadcasting that the corporation puts out, whereas it's relatively easy to list at least a few explicitly religious - primarily Christian - shows that are regular features of both television and radio.
I think, ultimately, he's confusing science and reason with atheism (argumentum ad Vlad, as it were), and unreasonably expects more things to be explicitly linked to God than there is any justification for; he's pining for the 'glory days' of the mid 20th Century when men where Christians and atheists knew to keep their bloody mouths shut, as is evidenced by the nonsense closing paragraph about not wanting a court judge who had no moral grounding/was an atheist as though the two were synonymous.
O.
-
I think, ultimately, he's confusing science and reason with atheism
Like Waterstones.
-
Like Waterstones.
If I were you I'd compose a strongly-worded e-mail as you said yesterday, Vlad.
To let them know you really mean business, put it in Comic Sans and in magenta. That'll show them how serious you are.
-
It doesn't matter how hard you try, you can't please everyone.
Some will always think the balance is wrong.
Some people argue there is too much religion and religiously motivated programmes on the BBC, others that there is not enough.
In this link the blogger is grumbling about the atheist influence at the BBC.
Do you think he is making a good point, that it needs to b challenged ? Or talking nonsense and bemoaning days past when more people claimed to be Christian ?
http://www.ukapologetics.net/10/BBCatheism.htm
How could the BBC improve? ( well apart from reinstate the messageboards)
Does the BBC need to address the balance?
This is stark staring mad. Just saying.
-
If I were you I'd compose a strongly-worded e-mail as you said yesterday, Vlad.
To let them know you really mean business, put it in Comic Sans and in magenta. That'll show them how serious you are.
font size?
-
font size?
Oh, 72 at least.
Make a statement, Vlad.
-
Oh, 72 at least.
Make a statement, Vlad.
The last time I did that I got reprimanded by the moderators for referring to Bluhillside as a
C**t
-
The last time I did that I got reprimanded by the moderators for referring to Bluhillside as a
C**t
As a Christian?
-
The last time I did that I got reprimanded by the moderators for referring to Bluhillside as a
C**t
We don't moderate strongly-worded emails to either Waterstones or the BBC. Knock yourself out.
-
I blame the late Terry Wogan; his insidious brand of Irish atheism, laced with charm and humour, has spread throughout the nation, so that millions of people, on rising, are more interested in an apricot whatnot than a prayer. RIP, funny man.
-
Like Waterstones.
Confusing philosophy/theology with science in their case, but yes.
Of course, their goal is to sell books, not to correctly classify their contents - it's cross-selling, of a sort, like when supermarkets put salsa in the 'crisps' aisle. They obviously aren't crisps, but whilst people are thinking about nachos they're more inclined to grab a salsa dip to go with it.
Similarly, whilst people are looking up popular science works they are more inclined to pick up and get a book on another topic by an author they're familiar with than they are to go looking for the religion and theology section on the off-chance a popular science author has penned a work of popular philosophy.
O.
-
Similarly, whilst people are looking up popular science works they are more inclined to pick up and get a book on another topic by an author they're familiar with than they are to go looking for the religion and theology section on the off-chance a popular science author has penned a work of popular philosophy.
Well exactly.
Dawkins has written lots of science books and one on religion - when constructing a display of an author's work it's just easier to lump them all together, even if it doesn't satisfy the strictures of the bookshop classification system.
I did briefly think about trying to explain this to Vlad, but decided against it and thought I'd have a more profitable and more enjoyable time scooping the lumps out of the cats' trays instead.
-
I did briefly think about trying to explain this to Vlad, but decided against it and thought I'd have a more profitable and more enjoyable time scooping the lumps out of the cats' trays instead.
So you leave shitty lumps in the cat tray as well as this forum.
-
So you leave shitty lumps in the cat tray as well as this forum.
No, that's definitely the cats.
-
I blame the late Terry Wogan; his insidious brand of Irish atheism, laced with charm and humour, has spread throughout the nation, so that millions of people, on rising, are more interested in an apricot whatnot than a prayer. RIP, funny man.
What I find hateful is pointing the finger at Terry Wogan's atheism as some kind of moral deficiency when he was open about how it arose following the death of his baby daughter.
http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/terry-wogan-tells-of-anguish-over-death-of-baby-girl-28561282.html
-
Dear Rhiannon,
What I find hateful is pointing the finger at Terry Wogan's atheism as some kind of moral deficiency when he was open about how it arose following the death of his baby son.
Who!! where!!
Gonnagle.
-
What I find hateful is pointing the finger at Terry Wogan's atheism as some kind of moral deficiency when he was open about how it arose following the death of his baby son.
I never even knew that ... I knew he was an atheist because he mentioned it in an interview with Gay Byrne briefly included in a documentary about Ireland that wiggy referred to earlier, but I didn't know anything about that :(
ETA: Incidentally, if you find that distasteful, cast an eye upon this gem of grave-pissing (for a man not yet even buried) from the Torygraph: http://goo.gl/dza26Z
-
I never even knew that ... I knew he was an atheist because he mentioned it in an interview with Gay Byrne briefly included in a documentary about Ireland that wiggy referred to earlier, but I didn't know anything about that :(
Little girl - I misremembered. But yes, I read it tucked away in a tiny column he had somewhere or other that he didn't believe because no loving god would allow such suffering.
-
See amended post.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Who!! where!!
Gonnagle.
I misremembered, Gonners - it was a little girl.
The article in Rose's OP for starters. Isn't it a common theme among some Christians that all atheism is morally deficient? It's found often enough on this forum.
May I ask why a moderator seems to be editing someone's post to include rather than the deletion of expletives?
-
May I ask why a moderator seems to be editing someone's post to include rather than the deletion of expletives?
Because I'm on my phone. Thanks for pointing it out.
Posts amended.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Who!! where!!
Gonnagle.
I misremembered, Gonners - it was a little girl.
The article in Rose's OP for starters. Isn't it a common theme among some Christians that all atheism is morally deficient? It's found often enough on this forum.
-
Nigella Lawson? Is she the one famous for her cocaine frosting?
-
Nigella Lawson? Is she the one famous for her cocaine frosting?
LOL Mr C....that made me snort.
-
It doesn't matter how hard you try, you can't please everyone.
Some will always think the balance is wrong.
Some people argue there is too much religion and religiously motivated programmes on the BBC, others that there is not enough.
The same has been said about their political output, Rose - and for the last 20+ years. You can't please everyone all the time. My view on the BBC is that it provides a platform for pretty well every 'mainstream' understanding of life, and long may that continue.
-
There is a BBC Religion & Ethics Department in Manchester, running at about £10,000,000 pa.
See if you can find any program designated as life from a Humanist Secularist viewpoint that is unchallenged, whereas there's a plethora of religion based programs that go to air freely and unchallenged almost whenever the religious want them.
I've always understood that the two departments within the BBC that are most challenged are the Political/News and the Religion & Ethics departments.
-
I think it no longer matters if the BBC doesn't cater so much for religion anymore because most of us have free veiw and there are whole channels that dedicate all their air time to religious matters.
Unfortunately, that is part of the argument that the Government is putting forward for the wholesale slashing of the Beeb's budget. There are more than enough other channels that produce the same things as the BBC, whatever the subject. The fact that the BBC's product is often of a higher quality is not something that interests the British Government, whichever colour it might be.
-
I've always understood that the two departments within the BBC that are most challenged are the Political/News and the Religion & Ethics departments.
The ban of the non-religious from presenting "Thought for the Day", BBC Radio 4's "Today"news program six days a week is entirely in my imagination; OK Hope I see?
ippy
-
10/10 for that one ipples :D
Sometimes the ball bearing in my head settles into its small depression and makes contact, yeeeeas, not very often.
ippy
-
Know the feeling :D
-
Sometimes the ball bearing in my head settles into its small depression and makes contact, yeeeeas, not very often.
ippy
:-\ ???
-
The ban of the non-religious from presenting "Thought for the Day", BBC Radio 4's "Today"news program six days a week is entirely in my imagination; OK Hope I see?
ippy
And as I said, the Religion and Ethics Department has been challenged on this issue for about as long as the News Department has been challenged on its perceived political bias - too left-wing by the Tories and too right-wing by Labour!!
It's perhaps worth noting that last year the BBC ran a series of 'Thoughts of the Day'-type spots on both Radios 2 & 4 from a variety of non-religious speakers. I think it lasted for either 6 or 8 weeks, and I believe that it will be extended once the new 10-year Charter is finalised.
-
And as I said, the Religion and Ethics Department has been challenged on this issue for about as long as the News Department has been challenged on its perceived political bias - too left-wing by the Tories and too right-wing by Labour!!
It's perhaps worth noting that last year the BBC ran a series of 'Thoughts of the Day'-type spots on both Radios 2 & 4 from a variety of non-religious speakers. I think it lasted for either 6 or 8 weeks, and I believe that it will be extended once the new 10-year Charter is finalised.
None of which were or will be presented within a main line serious news program, if you think that R & E dept hadn't thought of that, it's just a happen chance?
Did you listen to any of the Free thinking series of programs at the earlier part of last year, oh yes, they were all on BBC Radio three at 2300, I think that was the deepest place they could bury them.
ippy
P S Why don't these T4TD's have the occasional non-religious voice, what would be the problem with that?
Like I've mentioned before T4TD is just another one of the many religious privileges that's been there for so long the religious believers no longer see it as such; a privilege for religious people , discrimination against non-religious people.
-
P S Why don't these T4TD's have the occasional non-religious voice, what would be the problem with that?
Like I've mentioned before T4TD is just another one of the many religious privileges that's been there for so long the religious believers no longer see it as such; a privilege for religious people , discrimination against non-religious people.
Hi ippy, I understand - from a friend on the production side of the Beeb - that the wording of the existing Charter requires such things to be of a largely Christian nature - though I've heard the odd T4TD by Buddhist and Hindu speakers. I have also been told that the new Charter is likely to allow, even possibly require, speakers from a wider range of phlosophical viewpoints.
Regarding the suggestion that "religious believers no longer see it as such", you seem to miss the point. They often don't actually regard them as a privilege - there are some such 'chats' that, whilst claiming a religious provenance, have no religious content at all.
-
Hi ippy, I understand - from a friend on the production side of the Beeb - that the wording of the existing Charter requires such things to be of a largely Christian nature - though I've heard the odd T4TD by Buddhist and Hindu speakers. I have also been told that the new Charter is likely to allow, even possibly require, speakers from a wider range of phlosophical viewpoints.
Regarding the suggestion that "religious believers no longer see it as such", you seem to miss the point. They often don't actually regard them as a privilege - there are some such 'chats' that, whilst claiming a religious provenance, have no religious content at all.
Regarding where I pointed out that "religious believers no longer see it as as a privilege as such", Hope it's you that's missing the point.
They often don't actually regard them as a privilege, correct, there are some such 'chats' that, whilst claiming a religious provenance, have no religious content at all, right, but if anyone non-religious would like to join in they can't, for the moment, join in because there is a ban on non-religious contributers.
I hear what you say but this is how it actually is with the BBC and T4TD at the moment and I must say if the shoe were on the other foot I would give every support to your lot if they were discriminated against by the BBC in this way, it's blindingly obviously wrong, wrong, wrong the way it is at present.
If you can't see and understand this Hope, you've got some mighty serious problems.
By the way I have no objections to programs about religion being presented by the BBC.
I only object to the discrimination against any non-religious content, such as T4TD and no regular programming for non-religious people or is there very much, if any, unchallenged output for us, unchallenged in the same way religious programs are able to present unchallenged programming more or less at will. What are they afraid of?
ippy
-
Hi ippy, I understand - from a friend on the production side of the Beeb - that the wording of the existing Charter requires such things to be of a largely Christian nature
Sounds like school assemblies "of a broadly Christian nature" - in other words, something else that has no place in the Britain of 2016 as it actually is and should be got rid of PDQ.
I have also been told that the new Charter is likely to allow, even possibly require, speakers from a wider range of phlosophical viewpoints.
About bloody time. And in 2016 to boot >:(
-
Sounds like school assemblies "of a broadly Christian nature" - in other words, something else that has no place in the Britain of 2016 as it actually is and should be got rid of PDQ.
And, as I've said many times, a requirement more observed in the breach than in the adherence. Remember that the Act also requires that these asssemblies are 'all-school' assemblies, something that few, if any secondary schools have the requisite space for.
Ironically, I suspect that getting rid of them might actually help, rather than hinder, the numbers of religious: it is often the pig's ears of school-based religious 'education' that seems to put so many people off of religion.
-
Ironically, I suspect that getting rid of them might actually help, rather than hinder, the numbers of religious: it is often the pig's ears of school-based religious 'education' that seems to put so many people off of religion.
That's not irony, that's the blindest of bind faith.
-
That's not irony, that's the blindest of bind faith.
Not when the new believers are coming from non-believing backgrounds as they increasingly are, Shakes.
-
Not when the new believers are coming from non-believing backgrounds as they increasingly are, Shakes.
Increasingly says who?
Prof. Diddy would certainly refute that assertion - I can't remember the specifics but I do recall that in the not especially distant past he has presented statistics showing that the statistical likelihood of a child of religious parents becoming (or remaining) religious themselves is tiny. With non-religious parents that likelihood becomes minuscule.
He has presented his evidence - if we ask him nicely he may do so again if he contributes to this thread; where's yours?
-
Is it wrong to admit I quite like Thought for the Day? Sometimes it does make me think, even if it is only to construct arguments for why the speaker is wrong. Sometimes it makes me shout at the radio (usually when it is Anne Atkins) and I regard that as therapeutic.
-
Is it wrong to admit I quite like Thought for the Day? Sometimes it does make me think, even if it is only to construct arguments for why the speaker is wrong.
Provoking thought and provoking the construction of a clear counter-argument are always good things, to me.
Sometimes it makes me shout at the radio (usually when it is Anne Atkins) and I regard that as therapeutic.
Not that I listen to it anyway but if I did, I have to admit I'd probably turn off when she appears, much as I do with Jeremy Kyle.
-
J P & Shakes how about that Caroline Wyatt?
The next best thing to two fingers applied to the back of the throat, yuk.
ippy
-
J P & Shakes how about that Caroline Wyatt?
The next best thing to two fingers applied to the back of the throat, yuk.
ippy
Don't know much about her, ippy - apart from one appearance on Have I Got News For You.
-
Don't know much about her, ippy - apart from one appearance on Have I Got News For You.
She's the one they wheel out for making things like something the pope says or does sound as though it's important, I'm not sure exactly what her title is but whatever it is I think you will find she is their chief religious affairs correspondent, it's the hushed voice and the generally sickening tone that radiates from her when she speaks where she obviously thinks religions are worthy of some sort extra special reverence, it's more of a, YUK than a yuk.
ippy
-
J P & Shakes how about that Caroline Wyatt?
The next best thing to two fingers applied to the back of the throat, yuk.
ippy
You mean the BBC's previous War Correspondent?
-
You mean the BBC's previous War Correspondent?
The very same.
-
Is it wrong to admit I quite like Thought for the Day? Sometimes it does make me think, even if it is only to construct arguments for why the speaker is wrong. Sometimes it makes me shout at the radio (usually when it is Anne Atkins) and I regard that as therapeutic.
No, of course it isn't wrong to like it (and also to loath it depending on who is presenting).
That's isn't the point, of course. The point is that it shouldn't be restricted only to those whose 'thought' comes from a religious perspective - or even who are simply religious even if their 'thought' is almost or completely devoid of religious content. There are loads of non religious people who have just as valid 'thoughts' but they are banned. Now were it to be opened up I would have no doubt that we'd each like the contributions from some of the non religious voices, but loath others. That's what we should be getting a diversity of voices from all parts of our society, not just from the 10-15% of the population (at the very most) who are actively religious.
-
Thought for the day always used to remind of this. I was a great fan of Late Call when it was shown on STV if only because it gave birth to I M Jolly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S7egZ1WIvc
-
You mean the BBC's previous War Correspondent?
Yes Hope, she went over to religion and lost it, yuk.
ippy
-
Yes Hope, she went over to religion and lost it, yuk.
ippy
You are coming across as intolerant!
If you don't like this person, why listen?
I've not heard of her before.
But some people do hold the Popes statements as important, they need people to represent them on TV too.
What the Pope thinks doesn't carry any weight with me, but I don't need to see Catholics as ' yuk!'
-
You are coming across as intolerant!
If you don't like this person, why listen?
I've not heard of her before.
But some people do hold the Popes statements as important, they need people to represent them on TV too.
What the Pope thinks doesn't carry any weight with me, but I don't need to see Catholics as ' yuk!'
It's hard to avoid religion on the BBC particularly on most of their radio stations, they fawn over religion they always have done right from its Lord Reith days.
Caroline is only on spouting stuff for the religions usually on the news and if you see her reporting anything about religion for about as little as ten seconds you would understand the "yuk" factor that I've already described about her manner when she reports any religious doings or goings on.
I don't see Catholics as "yuk" either, but I do find the expounding of their beliefs by that Caroline "yuk", Wyatt a lot more "yucky" than most of the other BBC reporters of religious nonsense; they are also difficult to avoid.
Rose, tell me how I'm supposed to treat a religion that, tells Africans that condoms don't reduce the risk of spreading aids, presents something as ridiculous as transubstantiation, trying to prevent stem cell research and built their HQ the Vatican on indulgences, with even the smallest piece of respect, in fact their way of going on in these areas offend my intelligence, and you're showing concern that I may have of offended them?
ippy.
-
Caroline is only on spouting stuff for the religions usually on the news and if you see her reporting anything about religion for about as little as ten seconds you would understand the "yuk" factor that I've already described about her manner when she reports any religious doings or goings on.
To be fair, as the BBC Religion correspondent that's her job - if she doesn't do it she'll be on the Nat King Cole.
-
To be fair, as the BBC Religion correspondent that's her job - if she doesn't do it she'll be on the Nat King Cole.
The job of a religious correspondent on the BBC should be to report on news items relating to religious issues in a professional and impartial manner, just as we'd expect for any news correspondent. I guess ippy's issue is with her approach, namely an uncritical and rather fawning approach that isn't sufficiently impartial.
I have no strong opinions on her, but I do on another of the BBC's correspondents, Nicholas Witchell who is so fawningly biased toward the Royals it hurts.
-
Surely critical might read as partial. What is the evidence against her being not impartial enough? Note Nicholas Witchell is irrelevant to the specific case.
-
Surely critical might read as partial. What is the evidence against her being not impartial enough? Note Nicholas Witchell is irrelevant to the specific case.
Religion is controversial - both in terms of the differences between religions and also between religion and those with non religious outlooks. If someone isn't prepared to challenge religion but always treat it uncritically and with 'respect', whether or not that is due, then that is not impartial. The job of a news correspondent surely is to report factual news in a factual manner, and to ask critical questions and challenge views where opinions are being espoused, particularly controversial opinions. When a correspondent fails to do that they will be seen as not impartial.
And in general I think the BBC (which is most respects I see as first class) is too easily swayed by 'establishment' - and that manifests as failure to be as challenging as it should to religion and the royals. Too much reverence and respect is given.
-
Religion is controversial - both in terms of the differences between religions and also between religion and those with non religious outlooks. If someone isn't prepared to challenge religion but always treat it uncritically and with 'respect', whether or not that is due, then that is not impartial. The job of a news correspondent surely is to report factual news in a factual manner, and to ask critical questions and challenge views where opinions are being espoused, particularly controversial opinions. When a correspondent fails to do that they will be seen as not impartial.
And in general I think the BBC (which is most respects I see as first class) is too easily swayed by 'establishment' - and that manifests as failure to be as challenging as it should to religion and the royals. Too much reverence and respect is given.
So just random anecdote feeling, using some other reporter, unproved to be biased, and irrelevant any way to the specific case. It is like ad_o.
-
So just random anecdote feeling, using some other reporter, unproved to be biased, and irrelevant any way to the specific case. It is like ad_o.
Aye - what are you on about.
I made no comment about Caroline Wyatt - indeed I was very clear that I had no strong opinions on her.
I did however indicate that I perhaps understood where Ippy was coming from with another, perfectly relevant example (i.e. someone who I feel to be rather fawning and inappropriately uncritical). I then made a general point about my opinion on the BBC in relation to the royals and religion - I am perfectly entitled to give my opinion, aren't I.
Sometimes NS you give the impression of jumping on comments I make with a rather perplexing degree of criticality - what is that all about ???
-
Increasingly says who?
Prof. Diddy would certainly refute that assertion - I can't remember the specifics but I do recall that in the not especially distant past he has presented statistics showing that the statistical likelihood of a child of religious parents becoming (or remaining) religious themselves is tiny. With non-religious parents that likelihood becomes minuscule.
He has presented his evidence - if we ask him nicely he may do so again if he contributes to this thread; where's yours?
Ooo - please sir, me sir.
Sorry, missed this one - always happy to provide some hard evidence to the discussion.
So the data has been generated by a number of studies, most notably those by David Voas, who is probably the leading academic researcher in the UK on religiosity demographics.
Anyway, here it is again.
If both parents are religious then the likelihood of a child being religious as an adult is 50%
If one parent is religious, the other not, the likelihood of a child being religious as an adult is 25%
If neither parent is religious, the likelihood of a child being religious as an adult is just 3%
So just 3% of children brought up in non religious households end up religious as adults, 97% don't.
Believers come overwhelmingly from believing backgrounds, and believers coming from non believing backgrounds are as rare as hens teeth, and there is no evidence that the likelihood is increasing.
-
That's exactly what I was referring to - nice one Prof. ;)
-
That's exactly what I was referring to - nice one Prof. ;)
You are very welcome :)
-
The job of a religious correspondent on the BBC should be to report on news items relating to religious issues in a professional and impartial manner, just as we'd expect for any news correspondent. I guess ippy's issue is with her approach, namely an uncritical and rather fawning approach that isn't sufficiently impartial.
I have no strong opinions on her, but I do on another of the BBC's correspondents, Nicholas Witchell who is so fawningly biased toward the Royals it hurts.
Thanks proff you've got it, the pair of them, neither one of them is any better than the other.
ippy
-
Thanks proff you've got it, the pair of them, neither one of them is any better than the other.
ippy
ippy
Still rather perplexed at NS's outburst at me, given that you had started the whole discussion on 'fawning' BBC reporters. Not that I am wishing an NS toothless gumming on you, but does seem rather odd that he made not a squeak in response to your comments, but when I merely say that I understand where you are coming from I get the full double barrel. I've noted this before and I find it very odd - what has he got against me personally.
Hey ho.
-
Religion is controversial - both in terms of the differences between religions and also between religion and those with non religious outlooks. If someone isn't prepared to challenge religion but always treat it uncritically and with 'respect', whether or not that is due, then that is not impartial. The job of a news correspondent surely is to report factual news in a factual manner, and to ask critical questions and challenge views where opinions are being espoused, particularly controversial opinions. When a correspondent fails to do that they will be seen as not impartial.
And in general I think the BBC (which is most respects I see as first class) is too easily swayed by 'establishment' - and that manifests as failure to be as challenging as it should to religion and the royals. Too much reverence and respect is given.
Nail square on the head proff, cheers again.
ippy
-
Nail square on the head proff, cheers again.
ippy
And this isn't just my view, but also the views in some rather surprising quarters - top people in the BBC themselves. Jeremy Paxman was been rather eloquent in describing this issue, specifically on the Royals, but actually you could merely replace 'Royals' with 'Religion'.
I think the comment about the BBC not knowing whether to 'report' or 'celebrate' particular royal events is absolutely spot on.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/oct/07/bbc.royal.family
That seems to be the issue here - the BBC, with their news reporting, needs to report these events, not to be the Chief celebrator (or mourner) - when they step over the mark into the territory of 'mourner in chief' or 'celebrator in chief' they have ceased to be impartial.
-
Increasingly says who?
Prof. Diddy would certainly refute that assertion - I can't remember the specifics but I do recall that in the not especially distant past he has presented statistics showing that the statistical likelihood of a child of religious parents becoming (or remaining) religious themselves is tiny. With non-religious parents that likelihood becomes minuscule.
He has presented his evidence - if we ask him nicely he may do so again if he contributes to this thread; where's yours?
I think the stats PD produced showed that the likelihood of a child from a churched background becoming (or remaining) religious themselves is small, whilst that of non-churched children is somewhat smaller. I can't remember exactly, but I think the figures were within the 1-10% band. I'm not sure when those stats relate to. However, if the stats from our church, for instance, over the last 10 years is considered, we have seen twice as many people from non-churched backgrounds become believers than from churched backgrounds. Obviously, that isn't simply children - it includes adults of various ages. Over that period we have seen some 50 people become believers; not all have stayed within our congregation, as some have moved away to college, new jobs, etc., but we have kept in touch with most of those at a level other than that of the leadership.
'Christian Research' stats also seem to indicate this development, though because their data only has it happening over the last 3 -4 years, they aren't willing to commit categorically - it might simply be a blip as so often as happened in many different areas related to religious or non-religious belief.
-
Still rather perplexed at NS's outburst at me, given that you had started the whole discussion on 'fawning' BBC reporters. Not that I am wishing an NS toothless gumming on you, but does seem rather odd that he made not a squeak in response to your comments, but when I merely say that I understand where you are coming from I get the full double barrel. I've noted this before and I find it very odd - what has he got against me personally.
Hey ho.
Nothing. Just your ignorant use of a different reporter, Witchell as some form of justification of talking about Wyatt. It isn't personal and your attempt to make it so is just a bit sad.
-
So the data has been generated by a number of studies, most notably those by David Voas, who is probably the leading academic researcher in the UK on religiosity demographics.
It would be interesting to know where he gets his date from, PD. Dr. Peter Brierley has been a leading religious demographer for some years - having been a director of 'Christian Research' between 1993 and 2007, before which he had been director of MARC Europe for 10 years. He, and more recently CR, have produced a series of document called 'Religious Trends', the first edition being published in the early 90s. OK, the data comes from Censuses run by churches and other religious groups that are taken every year, in some groups, even more often, so the data is specific to church decline or growth.
If both parents are religious then the likelihood of a child being religious as an adult is 50%
If one parent is religious, the other not, the likelihood of a child being religious as an adult is 25%
So, by no means 'tiny' as Shakes would have us believe.
If neither parent is religious, the likelihood of a child being religious as an adult is just 3%
Tiny - but not miniscule.
Believers come overwhelmingly from believing backgrounds, and believers coming from non believing backgrounds are as rare as hens teeth, and there is no evidence that the likelihood is increasing.
The problem with this conclusion is that with the number of children from religious families growing up to be believers potentially dropping off slowly, the slowing of decline many are seeing, and the growth that others are seeing - over the past 5-10 years, has to be coming from somewhere else, and there is only one other group of people.
-
Nothing. Just your ignorant use of a different reporter, Witchell as some form of justification of talking about Wyatt. It isn't personal and your attempt to make it so is just a bit sad.
But I never made any comment about Wyatt. But the person who did (Ippy) certainly seems to understand the notion of comparing his views on her, to mine on Witchell.
Point being - why pile in on me, but make no comment to Ippy, who actually was making comments about Wyatt, rather than me, who didn't. All very strange and just the latest of a number of incidents when you have piled in on my comments in a manner that is totally perplexing and disproportionate.
If you say it isn't personal, then I'm happy to accept that - but I suggest you try changing your behaviour toward me so that it doesn't convey the opposite view.
-
But I never made any comment about Wyatt. But the person who did (Ippy) certainly seems to understand the notion of comparing his views on her, to mine on Witchell.
Point being - why pile in on me, but make no comment to Ippy, who actually was making comments about Wyatt, rather than me, who didn't. All very strange and just the latest of a number of incidents when you have piled in on my comments in a manner that is totally perplexing and disproportionate.
If you say it isn't personal, then I'm happy to accept that - but I suggest you try changing your behaviour toward me so that it doesn't convey the opposite view.
Diddums
-
It would be interesting to know where he gets his date from, PD. Dr. Peter Brierley has been a leading religious demographer for some years - having been a director of 'Christian Research' between 1993 and 2007, before which he had been director of MARC Europe for 10 years. He, and more recently CR, have produced a series of document called 'Religious Trends', the first edition being published in the early 90s. OK, the data comes from Censuses run by churches and other religious groups that are taken every year, in some groups, even more often, so the data is specific to church decline or growth.
Yes I am well aware of Brierley's work, but his approach is rather different to Voas. He looks merely at numbers, rather than Voas who's research additionally involves looking at cohorts - in other words following groups of people over time to determine whether they get more or less religious, and also doing that over multiple generations - in other words asking the children of religious and non religious people about their religiosity - Brierley doesn't do that so he cannot tell you the likelihood of a child brought up by religious parents being religious as an adult etc.
And actually, just on basis numbers - the most comprehensive survey of its type - the English Church Census was lead by Voas. He is the numero uno in this field in the UK.
The problem with this conclusion is that with the number of children from religious families growing up to be believers potentially dropping off slowly, the slowing of decline many are seeing, and the growth that others are seeing - over the past 5-10 years, has to be coming from somewhere else, and there is only one other group of people.
Nope the data from Voas almost perfectly predicts the decline in religiosity that we have seen over the past few decades, and also predicts how it will change in future decades in a manner that even many churches accept.
The only perturbing influence being immigration of highly religious groups, such as happened in the mid noughties from Poland.
-
Diddums
Hmm - and it was you describing me as sad ???
I note still no response to the person who actually made the comments about Wyatt, rather than the person who very clearly didn't make any comment about Wyatt.
Give a man enough rope to hang himself and guess what just might happen ...
-
Hmm - and it was you describing me as sad ???
I note still no response to the person who actually made the comments about Wyatt, rather than the person who very clearly didn't make any comment about Wyatt.
Give a man enough rope to hang himself and guess what just might happen ...
And diddums again. What tiny feet you have when you stamp them.
-
Just your ignorant use of a different reporter, Witchell ...
In what way are my opinions on Witchell 'ignorant' NS. Ignorant of what? Are you in fact Nicholas Witchell in disguise? I suspect not, and therefore we each base our opinions on him from what we see on the tv - now presumably your opinion of him is different to mine, but why does that make mine ignorant. If you think Witchell is the best reporter on the BBC, I would disagree with your opinion, but I don't see why it would be 'ignorant' unless you'd never actually seen the fawning Witchell in action.
And sadly I have seen him in action on the tv all too many times.
-
And diddums again. What tiny feet you have when you stamp them.
Keep digging, old chap.
-
In what way are my opinions on Witchell 'ignorant' NS. Ignorant of what? Are you in fact Nicholas Witchell in disguise? I suspect not, and therefore we each base our opinions on him from what we see on the tv - now presumably your opinion of him is different to mine, but why does that make mine ignorant. If you think Witchell is the best reporter on the BBC, I would disagree with your opinion, but I don't see why it would be 'ignorant' unless you'd never actually seen the fawning Witchell in action.
And sadly I have seen him in action on the tv all too many times.
You seem to have lost the use of basic English here. I said ignorant use of Witchell, not that you were ignorant about Witchell. Perhaps you need a lie down.
-
You seem to have lost the use of basic English here. I said ignorant use of Witchell, not that you were ignorant about Witchell. Perhaps you need a lie down.
That hole just keeps getting deeper by the minute.
Lets face it - your comment could be construed in two ways - either:
That my views on Witchell are 'ignorant' - well we've dealt with that one.
Or
That my comparison of Wyatt with Witchell is 'ignorant'
Even accepting your clarification of your earlier comment, which, lets face it, was as clear as mud ... in what way is it 'ignorant' to compare one BBC correspondent with, in the opinion of one poster here, a fawning approach to an 'establishment' subject to another BBC correspondent with, in the few of another poster here, a fawning approach to an 'establishment' subject? That seems to be a perfectly reasonable comparison, and indeed one that the original poster clearly recognised and appreciated. How is that 'ignorant'.
And again I ask - why no comment to the person who who actually was making comments about Wyatt, rather than me, who didn't.
-
That hole just keeps getting deeper by the minute.
Even accepting your clarification of your earlier comment, which, lets face it, was as clear as mud ... in what way is it 'ignorant' to compare one BBC correspondent with, in the opinion of one poster here, a fawning approach to an 'establishment' subject to another BBC correspondent with, in the few of another poster here, a fawning approach to an 'establishment' subject? That seems to be a perfectly reasonable comparison, and indeed one that the original poster clearly recognised and appreciated. How is that 'ignorant'.
And again I ask - why no comment to the person who who actually was making comments about Wyatt, rather than me, who didn't.
Wasn't a clarification, just a reiteration of the point that you got confused about. What happens for one correspondent is useless to address another. I have no idea why you think otherwise.
-
Wasn't a clarification, just a reiteration of the point that you got confused about. What happens for one correspondent is useless to address another. I have no idea why you think otherwise.
Nope - your original comment was ambiguous - but I'm pleased you've now actually clarified what you actually meant.
But again, why it is ignorant to make a comparison between two BBC reporters who, in the respective opinion of posters here, have similar characteristics - in other words a fawning approach to an establishment subject.
Blimey - if we can't compare things, we might as eel shut up shop here.
Why is this comparison 'ignorant' NS? Please explain this to me, and Ippy (who clearly gets it), and I guess others here who may be rather confused by your comments.
And yet again (as that hole gets deeper by the minute) - why no comment to the person who who actually was making comments about Wyatt, rather than me, who didn't.
-
Nope - your original comment was ambiguous - but I'm pleased you've now actually clarified what you actually meant.
But again, why it is ignorant to make a comparison between two BBC reporter who, in the respective opinion of posters here, have similar characteristics - in other words a fawning approach to an establishment subject.
Blimey - if we can't compare things, we might as eel shut up shop here.
Why is this comparison 'ignorant' NS? Please explain this to me, and Ippy (who clearly gets it), and I guess others here who may be rather confused by your comments.
And yet again (as that hole gets deeper by the minute) - why no comment to the person who who actually was making comments about Wyatt, rather than me, who didn't.
So there was an ambiguous comment that gets clarified but some other poster clearly gets that I meant something that you agree on? It's all getting a bit weird here, Prof D. I think you need to sit down, collect your thoughts, count to 10 etc etc.
Have a good nights sleep
-
So there was an ambiguous comment that gets clarified but some other poster clearly gets that I meant something that you agree on? It's all getting a bit weird here, Prof D. I think you need to sit down, collect your thoughts, count to 10 etc etc.
Have a good nights sleep
And when I wake I imagine you will have explained why it is 'ignorant' to to make a comparison between two BBC reporters who, in the respective opinion of posters here, have similar characteristics - in other words a fawning approach to an establishment subject. Your might disagree with us - but why is this 'ignorant'.
And also have explained why no comment to the person who actually was making comments about Wyatt, rather than me, who didn't.
And your approach is indeed weird, although I suspect you may have ended up in a hole so deep that you may be unable to see that.
Sleep well too - I guess you will as you won't get disturbed by the light, as it cannot get down into a hole so deep.
-
And when I wake I imagine you will have explained why it is 'ignorant' to to make a comparison between two BBC reporters who, in the respective opinion of posters here, have similar characteristics - in other words a fawning approach to an establishment subject. Your might disagree with us - but why is this 'ignorant'.
And also have explained why no comment to the person who actually was making comments about Wyatt, rather than me, who didn't.
And your approach is indeed weird, although I suspect you may have ended up in a hole so deep that you may be unable to see that.
Sleep well too - I guess you will as you won't get disturbed by the light, as it cannot get down into a hole so deep.
Dearie me, you do get so emotional about this stuff, so much so that you get confused. I'm not at all sure why you are so keen to pull poor ippy into your confusion, were you feeling lonely? I didn't pick ippy up, not that there is a real rule that one has to pick everyone who takes a position other than in your lonely head, because they hadn't made an irrelevant remark about Witchell. A remark which even when you wrote it, you effectively made irrelevant by parading your lack of knowledge about Wyatt.
How Witchell performs is irrelevant to how Wyatt does. (keep reading that sentence until you calm down enough to post sensibly)
-
How Witchell performs is irrelevant to how Wyatt does. (keep reading that sentence until you calm down enough to post sensibly)
Morning NS - trust it was nice and dark down in that deep hole you have dug for yourself.
You didn't say the comparison was 'irrelevant' but that it was 'ignorant' - you are changing your tune, but I will return to that in a minute. Yet again I ask - why it is 'ignorant' to to make a comparison between two BBC reporters who, in the respective opinion of posters here, have similar characteristics - in other words a fawning approach to an establishment subject.
On relevance, well this is a completely different question to it being 'ignorant', but I disagree. I have already made the point about the perceived inability of the BBC to be suitably detached and unbiased in its reporting in certain areas - and have linked to the views of Jeremy Paxman who has similar views. The two areas that spring to mind are religion and the royals, as I have already discussed. Therefore comparing the approach (fawning) of the chief reporters in each area is entirely relevant. Particularly as the organisation itself - the BBC - selects these people, sets the overall editorial line which they follow and allows those reporters to report in a particular manner (or doesn't as it sees fit).
That both of these chief reporters adopt a similar line fits well with the view that the BBC has a particular (and in my mind inappropriate, and also in the view of Paxman, particularly on the royals) editorial approach to news involving both the royals and religion.
The comparison is entirely relevant and appropriate to this discussion and it seems to be just you who has a problem with this.
-
Morning NS - trust it was nice and dark down in that deep hole you have dug for yourself.
You didn't say the comparison was 'irrelevant' but that it was 'ignorant' - you are changing your tune, but I will return to that in a minute. Yet again I ask - why it is 'ignorant' to to make a comparison between two BBC reporters who, in the respective opinion of posters here, have similar characteristics - in other words a fawning approach to an establishment subject.
On relevance, well this is a completely different question to it being 'ignorant', but I disagree. I have already made the point about the perceived inability of the BBC to be suitably detached and unbiased in its reporting in certain areas - and have linked to the views of Jeremy Paxman who has similar views. The two areas that spring to mind are religion and the royals, as I have already discussed. Therefore comparing the approach (fawning) of the chief reporters in each area is entirely relevant. Particularly as the organisation itself - the BBC - selects these people, sets the overall editorial line which they follow and allows those reporters to report in a particular manner (or doesn't as it sees fit).
That both of these chief reporters adopt a similar line fits well with the view that the BBC has a particular (and in my mind inappropriate, and also in the view of Paxman, particularly on the royals) editorial approach to news involving both the royals and religion.
The comparison is entirely relevant and appropriate to this discussion and it seems to be just you who has a problem with this.
It was both ignorant and irrelevant because you admitted you knew little about Wyatt. You were not comparing, you were using irrelevant personal feeling about Witchell to make an ignorant judgment on Wyatt.
I see my attempt to get you off your emotional high horse has failed. Did someone do something nasty to you in woodshed?
-
Yes Hope, she went over to religion and lost it, yuk.
ippy
Did she go over to religion and lose it, or was it perhaps that her experience of war situations - often embedded deep into the war process itself - gave her a different outlook on life to those who haven't had that kind of experience?
-
It was both ignorant and irrelevant because you admitted you knew little about Wyatt[/b/].
Now you are just making stuff up NS.
Where have I admitted that I 'knew little about Wyatt' NS - I haven't.
-
Now you are just making stuff up NS.
Where have I admitted that I 'knew little about Wyatt' NS - I haven't.
Indeed you didn't, and I apologise that I misquoted you. You said you had 'no strong opinion' of her and then cited the irrelevance of Witchell.
-
Indeed you didn't, and I apologise that I misquoted you. You said you had 'no strong opinion' of her and then cited the irrelevance of Witchell.
Apology accepted, but I find it hard to understand how someone can misinterpret my actual comment, that I had no strong opinion on her to mean that I knew little about her.
Unless of course your judgement has become clouded in a personal and emotional manner.
You claimed my views were 'ignorant' yet that seems to have crumbled to dust (and you now are quietly dropping it.
You are still claiming that comparing Wyatt and Witchell is irrelevant - it isn't for the reasons I have given. Rather than simply blurting out the same phrase time and time again, perhaps you might actually explain why it is irrelevant to make comparisons between two BBC correspondents, with briefs to cover 'establishment' topics (religion and the royals) who seem to adopt a similar editorial approach to their work - and one that lays both open to challenge on the basis of 'fawning' and bias.
That comparison is entirely relevant and actually suggests that the approach isn't merely their own personal 'style' - indeed neither were particularly 'fawning' when in their roles prior to their current ones. Nope it suggests this to be a specific BBC editorial approach, which each are following.
-
Nope, I haven't dropped the ignorant, I am just not hanging on your lack of knowledge. The irrelevance is because you are simply applying guilt by association. Indeed, it makes your comments in some ways more ignorant in that if you have watched Wyatt and not formed a strong opinion, blaming her because of Witchell, moves from simply tarring her with no evidence of guilt, to tarring her where there is evidence, your own lack of opinion,of innocence.
I could sort of see your point had you been making a generalisation about the BBC but this is a specific person who you are happy to condemn not for what she has done but for what someone else has, and what your own take is that she hasn't.
-
... but this is a specific person who you are happy to condemn not for what she has done but for what someone else has, and what your own take is that she hasn't.
You really are tying yourself up in knots NS ad still making stuff up. Where have I condemned her?
-
Post 72 where you have as insufficiently impartial despite not actually thinking that in the basis of her performance but because of your dislike of Witchell.
-
I think the stats PD produced showed that the likelihood of a child from a churched background becoming (or remaining) religious themselves is small, whilst that of non-churched children is somewhat smaller. I can't remember exactly, but I think the figures were within the 1-10% band. I'm not sure when those stats relate to. However, if the stats from our church, for instance, over the last 10 years is considered, we have seen twice as many people from non-churched backgrounds become believers than from churched backgrounds. Obviously, that isn't simply children - it includes adults of various ages. Over that period we have seen some 50 people become believers; not all have stayed within our congregation, as some have moved away to college, new jobs, etc., but we have kept in touch with most of those at a level other than that of the leadership.
'Christian Research' stats also seem to indicate this development, though because their data only has it happening over the last 3 -4 years, they aren't willing to commit categorically - it might simply be a blip as so often as happened in many different areas related to religious or non-religious belief.
Well the Church of England certainly don't seem to agree with your 'new shoots' kind of view:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/17/church-of-england-attendance-decline-30-years-general-assembly
They seem very pessimistic about the predictions for church-going over the next 30 years. And why are they able to make these predictions decades into the future. Precisely because they understand the implications of Voas' work on generational replacement and the reasons for the decline in churchgoing over the past few decades and why that allows you to pretty confidently predict what will happen over the next few decades.
Again one caveat being the effect of immigration of large numbers of people with an existing high level of religiosity.
-
You really are tying yourself up in knots NS ad still making stuff up. Where have I condemned her?
Still making stuff up? You don't really understand apologies, do you? I misinterpreted something and explained that, and having accepted the apology, you are now using it as an act of 'making stuff up'.
It's a pity that you get into these tizzies.
-
Post 72 where you have as insufficiently impartial despite not actually thinking that in the basis of her performance but because of your dislike of Witchell.
You are still making stuff up.
The accusation was that I condemned Caroline Wyatt. This is what I said about her (word for word):
'The job of a religious correspondent on the BBC should be to report on news items relating to religious issues in a professional and impartial manner, just as we'd expect for any news correspondent. I guess ippy's issue is with her approach, namely an uncritical and rather fawning approach that isn't sufficiently impartial.
I have no strong opinions on her ...'
Actually most of this is about what I think a correspondent should be - indeed I don't 'condemn' her at all - any negative comment is relating to Ippy's view of her, not mine.
-
You are still making stuff up.
The accusation was that I condemned Caroline Wyatt. This is what I said about her (word for word):
'The job of a religious correspondent on the BBC should be to report on news items relating to religious issues in a professional and impartial manner, just as we'd expect for any news correspondent. I guess ippy's issue is with her approach, namely an uncritical and rather fawning approach that isn't sufficiently impartial.
I have no strong opinions on her ...'
Actually most of this is about what I think a correspondent should be - indeed I don't 'condemn' her at all - any negative comment is relating to Ippy's view of her, not mine.
See bold. You didn't say ippy's opinion. You said her approach.
-
See bold. You didn't say ippy's opinion. You said her approach.
Oh you are now on to selective quote mining and taking partial comments out of context.
The 'bold' bit is part of a sentence where I was paraphrasing Ippy's views on her approach, which he had indicated in posts 53, 61, 63, 68 and 70 - I would have thought that was pretty clear as the sentence starts, 'I guess ippy's issue is with her approach ...' - I think that makes it pretty clear that I'm talking about Ippy's views.
And just in case I wasn't being completely clear I then clarified with 'I have no strong opinions on her ...'
So where have I condemned her - note that its a pretty strong phrase.
-
No, I pointed out that in context your post reads as if her approach is insufficiently impartial. I accept that you have through me teasing it out of you made clear what you actually mean and that other than ippy's opinion we currently have no evidence against Wyatt.
-
No, I pointed out that in context your post reads as if her approach is insufficiently impartial. I accept that you have through me teasing it out of you made clear what you actually mean and that other than ippy's opinion we currently have no evidence against Wyatt.
Then you read my post wrong - which is rather surprising given that I said unequivocally that 'I have no strong opinions on her ...'
And also reiterated in numerous posts (e.g. 76, 87, 90, 95, 97, 99), that I hadn't made any comment about Wyatt, and most of those posts your responded to so surely you must have been aware of this. So how you can try to make a claim that I had condemned her is totally bizarre.
-
I hope diplomats in various countries don't ever do their communicating by email or written word...........
🌏🙊💪🏽🤕
-
And this isn't just my view, but also the views in some rather surprising quarters - top people in the BBC themselves. Jeremy Paxman was been rather eloquent in describing this issue, specifically on the Royals, but actually you could merely replace 'Royals' with 'Religion'.
I think the comment about the BBC not knowing whether to 'report' or 'celebrate' particular royal events is absolutely spot on.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/oct/07/bbc.royal.family
That seems to be the issue here - the BBC, with their news reporting, needs to report these events, not to be the Chief celebrator (or mourner) - when they step over the mark into the territory of 'mourner in chief' or 'celebrator in chief' they have ceased to be impartial.
Another thing the BBC does when reporting politics, from whatever side, instead of giving the news straight or with demonstrable neutrality, there were some particularly bad examples given in this area by Nick Robinson, where we got a report from him sometimes with an interview as well, then after the interview the camera would go to him while he in effect instructed us how to understand the views expressed by the person he had just previously interviewed.
Well I don't know about you, I would rather hear the things coming from the horses mouth and make up my own mind about whatever it is they have to say; well anyway I made a complaint about this to the BBC on one occasion some three or four years back, I through in a few F's and B's in outrage, out of character for me, who is he to tell us how to think etc, etc, I did have the usual from the BBC's specialist slimy answer team, that all he was talking about at that particular time was, "analysis", I can remember thinking oh well that's OK then, just before I then exploded.
It's not quite so bad since he has been in ill health, which no matter how much he has annoyed me I hope he gets over his throat cancer, nobody deserves that, but they are still trying to shape our thinking in all sorts of areas, maybe not by tone of voice in this case, but still nowhere near impartial enough for me.
I think the BBC in it's arrogance tries to treat us in a way a bit like it's in control of the paddles on a pinball machine, just a tap here and there where it thinks necessary to shape how we think, even if I'm wrong that's the impression I get of them.
ippy
-
No, I pointed out that in context your post reads as if her approach is insufficiently impartial. I accept that you have through me teasing it out of you made clear what you actually mean and that other than ippy's opinion we currently have no evidence against Wyatt.
Been reading the posts NS, it's all good fun, love it.
ippy
-
Been reading the posts NS, it's all good fun, love it.
ippy
You may say that, I couldn't possibly comment....
-
I hope diplomats in various countries don't ever do their communicating by email or written word...........
🌏🙊💪🏽🤕
There are times when you don't say something in the written word, and then reiterate a least half a dozen time that you hadn't said something yet someone will claim that you had said it.
Frankly there isn't really anything that can be done for people who read whatever they want to read, rather than what is actually written ;)
-
Another thing the BBC does when reporting politics, from whatever side, instead of giving the news straight or with demonstrable neutrality, there were some particularly bad examples given in this area by Nick Robinson, where we got a report from him sometimes with an interview as well, then after the interview the camera would go to him while he in effect instructed us how to understand the views expressed by the person he had just previously interviewed.
Well I don't know about you, I would rather hear the things coming from the horses mouth and make up my own mind about whatever it is they have to say; well anyway I made a complaint about this to the BBC on one occasion some three or four years back, I through in a few F's and B's in outrage, out of character for me, who is he to tell us how to think etc, etc, I did have the usual from the BBC's specialist slimy answer team, that all he was talking about at that particular time was, "analysis", I can remember thinking oh well that's OK then, just before I then exploded.
It's not quite so bad since he has been in ill health, which no matter how much he has annoyed me I hope he gets over his throat cancer, nobody deserves that, but they are still trying to shape our thinking in all sorts of areas, maybe not by tone of voice in this case, but still nowhere near impartial enough for me.
I think the BBC in it's arrogance tries to treat us in a way a bit like it's in control of the paddles on a pinball machine, just a tap here and there where it thinks necessary to shape how we think, even if I'm wrong that's the impression I get of them.
ippy
I talked about these kind of issues, i.e. political impartiality, on the Dan Walker thread but I think there are differences compared to the current discussion on religion and the royals.
I genuinely think that the BBC 'gets' the notion and importance of impartiality in politics, although I think it may struggle to actually deliver it in practice. I think in terms of the royals and religion that the BBC is completely struggling with the concept so there ends up with a clear editorial thread that runs through its news reporting that basically the royals and religion are a jolly good thing. And this is basically the point Paxman makes on the royals, but it also applies, in my opinion, to news reporting on religious issues.
And I think this fundamental struggle to understand the concept of impartiality and balance in the context of the royals and religion leads to this 'reverential' editorial tone that is typically of the various reporters and corespondents in these areas - given that I don't believe either Wyatt, nor Witchell really demonstrated these traits when at Defence or as a newsreader/reporting on Lockerbie etc suggests to me that this isn't fundamentally about the person, but about the expected editorial approach.
-
Did she go over to religion and lose it, or was it perhaps that her experience of war situations - often embedded deep into the war process itself - gave her a different outlook on life to those who haven't had that kind of experience?
See my recent post - I think it may be a case of the expected editorial approach of a 'religious affairs correspondent' rather than a fundamental change in her, whatever her experience in a war situation.
And I think there is the same expected editorial approach for a 'royal correspondent' too - so where once he had Nicholas Witchell reporting on major issues (Lockerbie, Lebanon, Zeebrugge, Bosnia, first gulf war) in a manner completely in keeping with the time (late 1980s, early 1990s and importance of these events, we now have him reporting royal events in a manner more akin to a 1950s Pathe newsreel about a summer garden fete. Is that really a change in him, or an indication that he needs to fit an expected editorial line and presentational approach when reporting on the royals.
-
I talked about these kind of issues, i.e. political impartiality, on the Dan Walker thread but I think there are differences compared to the current discussion on religion and the royals.
I genuinely think that the BBC 'gets' the notion and importance of impartiality in politics, although I think it may struggle to actually deliver it in practice. I think in terms of the royals and religion that the BBC is completely struggling with the concept so there ends up with a clear editorial thread that runs through its news reporting that basically the royals and religion are a jolly good thing. And this is basically the point Paxman makes on the royals, but it also applies, in my opinion, to news reporting on religious issues.
And I think this fundamental struggle to understand the concept of impartiality and balance in the context of the royals and religion leads to this 'reverential' editorial tone that is typically of the various reporters and corespondents in these areas - given that I don't believe either Wyatt, nor Witchell really demonstrated these traits when at Defence or as a newsreader/reporting on Lockerbie etc suggests to me that this isn't fundamentally about the person, but about the expected editorial approach.
The next time you see an analysis on the BBC news of the nature I've described and perhaps take a bit more notice than you have in the past, I don't mean that as is sounds, I'm not trying to give you an order.
I don't like their, the BBC's tendency editorial or otherwise.
ippy
-
The next time you see an analysis on the BBC news of the nature I've described and perhaps take a bit more notice than you have in the past, I don't mean that as is sounds, I'm not trying to give you an order.
I don't like their, the BBC's tendency editorial or otherwise.
ippy
Yes I know what you are on about. I actually think that many news organisations are struggling with their editorial approach these days, specifically because we can, by and large, go direct to the horse's mouth on many issues, via the web. Previously that wasn't possible as all news (pretty well) was channeled via one or other news outlet, whether newspapers, tv or radio.
We used to be much more accepting of our news provided through an editorial filter (as that's all there was) than now when we can get the original view.
I'm very aware of this as an issue, and whenever I can, I always on this MB try to link to the original sources, such as reports, scientific papers etc, rather than to secondary reporting of them if possible.
-
Yes I know what you are on about. I actually think that many news organisations are struggling with their editorial approach these days, specifically because we can, by and large, go direct to the horse's mouth on many issues, via the web. Previously that wasn't possible as all news (pretty well) was channeled via one or other news outlet, whether newspapers, tv or radio.
We used to be much more accepting of our news provided through an editorial filter (as that's all there was) than now when we can get the original view.
I'm very aware of this as an issue, and whenever I can, I always on this MB try to link to the original sources, such as reports, scientific papers etc, rather than to secondary reporting of them if possible.
There's a lot of material the BBC sends out that I'm not quite senile enough, yet, to see and take their word as wrote.
ippy
-
There's a lot of material the BBC sends out that I'm not quite senile enough, yet, to see and take their word as wrote.
ippy
I think you are perhaps a touch more cynical that I am in general about the BBC. I see it, in the main, as balanced and a source I trust. There are a few notable exceptions (as discussed on this thread and others) but that doesn't affect my general view.
The BBC is worst at reporting on ... the ... BBC. It doesn't know how to deal with news stories about itself, which aren't that uncommon. It swings between sweeping things under the carpet and undue self-flagellation, neither of which are right.
-
I think you are perhaps a touch more cynical that I am in general about the BBC. I see it, in the main, as balanced and a source I trust. There are a few notable exceptions (as discussed on this thread and others) but that doesn't affect my general view.
The BBC is worst at reporting on ... the ... BBC. It doesn't know how to deal with news stories about itself, which aren't that uncommon. It swings between sweeping things under the carpet and undue self-flagellation, neither of which are right.
Try to get their explaination about why T4TD only has religion based speakers, if you can get your head around that one, you might see why my view of the BBC is a bit jaded.
Try to avoid banging your head on a hard surfaces in your efforts to make sense of their explaination of why the non-religious are banned fromT4TD, you'll understand me and what I'm saying once you have read this standard responce they have ready and waiting for those that ask.
ippy
-
Try to get their explaination about why T4TD only has religion based speakers, if you can get your head around that one, you might see why my view of the BBC is a bit jaded.
Try to avoid banging your head on a hard surfaces in your efforts to make sense of their explaination of why the non-religious are banned fromT4TD, you'll understand me and what I'm saying once you have read this standard responce they have ready and waiting for those that ask.
ippy
As I have clearly stated earlier religion in general, and T4TD are areas where I do think the BBC isn't getting it right, being editorially too 'pro' religion rather than neutral.
There is of course no justification for banning ethical 'thoughts' from non religious people, expect through the BBC's view that it is part of their 'religious' output - which begs the question as to why they have specifically 'religious' output in the first place, given their requirement for balance. And further why it is appropriate for unchallenged voices, only from one small part of the spectrum of ethical opinion, to be allowed several minutes smack in the middle of (and indistinguishable from) the radio 4's flagship news programme.