Fraser on the BBC

[ProfessorDavey]

How would an atheist weekly wrap up of religion.....a Friday ''Don't worry about what you've heard over the past few days, There probably isn't a God so enjoy your weekend'' not come across as atheist bias?

Why on earth would a non religious (or even atheist) ethicist mention religion as part of TFTD - likely they would do exactly the same as the current contributors - in other words provide an ethical dimension (aligning with their own ethical views) on a topic of current newsworthiness.

And even if that were the approach - why would that be bias - day after day, week after week, TFTD contributor after TFTD contributors bases their opinion piece on a presumption of the existence of god. When you provide an unchallenged slot for a 3 minute opinion piece, it will necessarily be biased towards the opinion of that contributor. Balance is provided by ensuring that the contributors represent the full spectrum of opinion - which, in this case would include religious people from a range of religions and a range of non religious contributors. To have some contributions that do not so presume the existence of god would presented greater impartiality not bias.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't - it is part of the BBC's Religion and Ethics output.

So, You just want the religious output cut because you don't like hearing a view alternative to your own. That's fine. Just stop dressing it up as privilege in airtime for religion when that is clearly taking the piss given the grotesque miniscule amount of airtime broadcast by a public service broadcaster.

[ProfessorDavey]

So, You just want the religious output cut because you don't like hearing a view alternative to your own. That's fine. Just stop dressing it up as privilege in airtime for religion when that is clearly taking the piss given the grotesque miniscule amount of airtime broadcast by a public service broadcaster.

Blimey that's one giant leap from my comment that TFTD was not part of the BBC's Religious output, but part of its Religion and Ethics output.

I think I also stated very clearly that the BBC should be producing and broadcasting programmes about religion - see reply47. I haven't proffered an opinion on whether there is too much or too little of this.

What the BBC should not be doing (as it has a requirement to be impartial) is to allow unchallenged opinion pieces from people who represent only a part of the spectrum of opinion in one area. I must ensure that those unchallenged opinion piece slots are available to all the relevant opinion, or to none. Only to allow religious people to proffer their opinions, unchallenged on prime time radio while banning non religious opinion on the same topics (effectively ethical opinion on current affairs) is not demonstrating impartiality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Blimey that's one giant leap from my comment that TFTD was not part of the BBC's Religious output, but part of its Religion and Ethics output.

I think I also stated very clearly that the BBC should be producing and broadcasting programmes about religion - see reply47. I haven't proffered an opinion on whether there is too much or too little of this.

What the BBC should not be doing (as it has a requirement to be impartial) is to allow unchallenged opinion pieces from people who represent only a part of the spectrum of opinion in one area. I must ensure that those unchallenged opinion piece slots are available to all the relevant opinion, or to none. Only to allow religious people to proffer their opinions, unchallenged on prime time radio while banning non religious opinion on the same topics (effectively ethical opinion on current affairs) is not demonstrating impartiality.

If you want someone coming on challenging the other religions which are not after all challenging each others positions that is not non religion but antireligion. That certainly isn't Thought for the Day as is.
The Hindi gives the Hindu position, The Sikh gives the sikh position etc. What position can the Antireligious give?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Blimey that's one giant leap from my comment that TFTD was not part of the BBC's Religious output, but part of its Religion and Ethics output.

I think I also stated very clearly that the BBC should be producing and broadcasting programmes about religion - see reply47. I haven't proffered an opinion on whether there is too much or too little of this.

What the BBC should not be doing (as it has a requirement to be impartial) is to allow unchallenged opinion pieces

Unchallenged opinion pieces is what the Today programme is!....and that's just the 'Team's opinions.

Being aware of how miniscule the amount of religious programming there is diluting it even more seems unjustifiable tyranny of the majority.

Challenged religion is covered on the Nicky Campbell TV show.

Regarding TFTD the chief Rabbi gives the Jewish position, The sikh gives the sikh position and so on, They do not challenge other religions. What can an antireligious speaker then do for thought for the day? What would be achieved? The cultural primacy of anti religionists or irreligionists? How simperingly and unfeasibly sentimental secular humanism is?(That might be case for go ahead)

[Shaker]

TFTD is part of the BBC religious output what part then does the non religious have to play in it?

The slot is called Thought for the Day.

Not Religious Thought for the Day; just Thought for the Day.

If the title was accurate it would consist of thoughts of all hues of the spectrum of opinion - religious, certainly, but non-religious too.

The fact that this isn't the case means that the slot is failing its remit. Its title doesn't match its actual content.

Especially given the fact that - quite apart from all the other religious output - TFtD comes about two hours after another explicitly religious slot in the form of Prayer for the Day broadcast (I think) at 5:45am six days a week.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The slot is called Thought for the Day.

Not Religious Thought for the Day; just Thought for the Day.

If the title was accurate it would consist of thoughts of all hues of the spectrum of opinion - religious, certainly, but non-religious too.

The fact that this isn't the case means that the slot is failing its remit. Its title doesn't match its actual content.

Especially given the fact that - quite apart from all the other religious output - TFtD comes about two hours after another explicitly religious slot in the form of Prayer for the Day broadcast (I think) at 5:45am six days a week.

So what's that 6 minutes 7 days per week in the air time of 10 national radio and TV networks.
Someone else wanting to make miniscule airtime given sound like a lavish epic?

[ProfessorDavey]

Unchallenged opinion pieces is what the Today programme is!....and that's just the 'Team's opinions.

No it isn't - the contributors are robustly challenged by the presenters in circumstances where they contribute alone. And in many other cases there are two contributors each with differing views, who in effect debate with each other with the presenters acting as a sort of chair.

The only time I can ever remember the Today programme allowing unchallenged opinion pieces (not sure if this was even during the Today programme slot) was from memory, on Saturdays when they rotated opinion pieces between Will Self (to provide a left wing perspective) and Frederick Forsyth (a right wing perspective).

[ProfessorDavey]

So what's that 6 minutes 7 days per week in the air time of 10 national radio and TV networks.
Someone else wanting to make miniscule airtime given sound like a lavish epic.

You could say the same about political broadcasts.

Would you be happy if for 3 minutes on prime time radio on the BBC a politician was allowed an unchallenged slot to proffer their political view - but with a bias such that only right wing views were allowed - so they'd rotate between contributors representing the Tories, UKIP, BNP and other wing organisation - but with anyone with a view towards the other end of the spectrum (i.e. left wing) banned.

Frankly it wouldn't matter if it was only 10 seconds - it would still be non impartial and not right.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You could say the same about political broadcasts.

Would you be happy if for 3 minutes on prime time radio on the BBC a politician was allowed an unchallenged slot to proffer their political view - but with a bias such that only right wing views were allowed - so they'd rotate between contributors representing the Tories, UKIP, BNP and other wing organisation - but with anyone with a view towards the other end of the spectrum (i.e. left wing) banned.

Frankly it wouldn't matter if it was only 10 seconds - it would still be non impartial and not right.

Politics cannot be helped Davey. If you let someone on saying all politics should be stopped that is a political statement. Not so with religion.

You keep using the word challenge which i'm afraid in the hands of atheists who wish to publicise atheism is all atheism is.

TFTD is not that kind of programme. Religions talk about their content without setting out to challenge. Secular Humanism 'might' just be able to do that but since it is now so caught up in antireligion what can be said.

That aside wanting to reduce the amount of religious programming to accommodate non or antireligion is just intellectual totalitarianism.

[ProfessorDavey]

You keep using the word challenge which i'm afraid in the hands of atheists who wish to publicise atheism is all atheism is.

TFTD is not that kind of programme. Religions talk about their content without setting out to challenge. Secular Humanism 'might' just be able to do that but since it is now so caught up in antireligion what can be said.

You are misunderstanding the use of the word 'challenged' - in this context what it means is that the TFTD format allows a single individual to give their views on a topic for three minutes without anyone questioning or 'challenging' that view. That isn't what happens in the rest of the today programme where opinions will be questioned or 'challenged' either by the presenters or other contributors.

Now I am not saying that the notion of an unchallenged opinion piece on the BBC is wrong fundamentally - but in the interests of impartiality if that type of format is offered to people holding a sub-set of views represented in the country (in this case the religious) it needs to be offered additionally to those holding differing views (in this case the non religious) - not to do se sends out the clearest of messages that the BBC values the views and ethical reflections of religious people on the matters of the day more than those of non religious people - in other words bias.

And you keep talking about anti religion - which shows that you too have a bias. Were TFTD to be opened up to non religious people then I would be surprised if John Harris or Jonathan Glover (to name but two non religious ethicists who would probably be excellent) would mention religion at all - no they would reflect on the issues of the day from their own non religious ethical viewpoint. To think that a non religious contributor would somehow spend their time attacking religion on TFTD is as bonkers as thinking that a Hindu contributor would spend their time on TFTD attacking Christianity - they don't - they reflect on their Hindu perspectives and how they see them contributing to the issues of the day.

[ippy]

The slot is called Thought for the Day.

Not Religious Thought for the Day; just Thought for the Day.

If the title was accurate it would consist of thoughts of all hues of the spectrum of opinion - religious, certainly, but non-religious too.

The fact that this isn't the case means that the slot is failing its remit. Its title doesn't match its actual content.

Especially given the fact that - quite apart from all the other religious output - TFtD comes about two hours after another explicitly religious slot in the form of Prayer for the Day broadcast (I think) at 5:45am six days a week.

Don't forget the other one "Pause for Thought ", BBC radio two during the morning Ken Bruce program.

It's a little and often policy, of theirs.

ippy

[Sebastian Toe]

And you keep talking about anti religion - which shows that you too have a bias.

It's much more than a bias. It's a full blown paranoia!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't forget the other one "Pause for Thought ", BBC radio two during the morning Ken Bruce program.

It's a little and often policy, of theirs.

ippy

Crikey. That's a 33% increase on religion time mentioned bringing it up to a wildly extravagant and resource draining 9 minutes of religious ''for the day'' broadcasting over 10 networks.
Religious output based on those quoted by the National Secular Society is around 550 hours in around 95,000 hours of broadcasting over 10 national networks. That's little but hardly often.

[ippy]

Crikey. That's a 33% increase on religion time mentioned bringing it up to a wildly extravagant and resource draining 9 minutes of religious ''for the day'' broadcasting over 10 networks.
Religious output based on those quoted by the National Secular Society is around 550 hours in around 95,000 hours of broadcasting over 10 national networks. That's little but hardly often.

It's now far less of the population here in the U K that wants to listen to any specifically religious programmes, the BBC fawns over religion and grossly overdoes the amount of religious broadcasting wanted or needed.

Couldn't help noticing Vlad, you still haven't managed to get your head around what it is secularism is trying to achieve, maybe one day? 

Give you a clue Vlad, as a secularist, if any group was setting out to prevent you practising your religious belief I'd be with you on your side and fight for this freedom alongside you, probably with a load of other secularists all doing the same.

Regards ippy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's now far less of the population here in the U K that wants to listen to any specifically religious programmes, the BBC fawns over religion and grossly overdoes the amount of religious broadcasting wanted or needed.

There seems to be no correlation between the number of religious people and the amount of airtime given over to religion.

Nor the amount of fawning and grossly overdoing.

[Walter]

There seems to be no correlation between the number of religious people and the amount of airtime given over to religion.

Nor the amount of fawning and grossly overdoing.

although I understand you have the freedom to worship whoever you want when ever you want , I simply wish you didn't , I am embarrassed for you.

[Nearly Sane]

There seems to be no correlation between the number of religious people and the amount of airtime given over to religion.

Nor the amount of fawning and grossly overdoing.

So what's the correlation between non religious people and the amount given over to secularism.

[ippy]

There seems to be no correlation between the number of religious people and the amount of airtime given over to religion.

Nor the amount of fawning and grossly overdoing.

Yes I've got that Vlad, but you haven't commented on my helpful note trying to assist you on your way to begin having an understanding of secularism?

Regards ippy