The BBC and religious broadcasting.

[Rhiannon]

TFTD is so cringe-worthy it makes you want to chew your own fist off with shame. Add humanism and you'll just get humanist cringe-worthiness along with all the rest.

And yes I know it's supposed to be 'fair', but do the humanists here really want that level of embarrassment?

[Udayana]

True .. but yes ..  I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like to hear them if they have anything to say.

[ippy]

TFTD is so cringe-worthy it makes you want to chew your own fist off with shame. Add humanism and you'll just get humanist cringe-worthiness along with all the rest.

And yes I know it's supposed to be 'fair', but do the humanists here really want that level of embarrassment?

Embarrassment or not that's not the point Rhi.

The only good thing I can see about the BBC's ban on the non-religious from T4TD, is that the BBC plainly shows it's hand.

ippy

 

[Shaker]

I remember the latter quite well, and feel the same about it as you do.  I also remember 'Extreme Pilgrim', though I didn't see the third episode.  I felt that it was all very shallow, with POJ trying to get into the guts of a philosophy in far too short a time to get anywhere.  In fact, that is my opinion on most similar kinds of programme.  All they do is scratch the surface.

I think there's a perception amongst some that today's audiences don't have the attention span to be able to sustain concentration on a serious subject over, let's say, six or seven or eight hours in weekly instalments (which counts for nothing in these days of recording devices). One of the most annoying features of modern British documentaries on commercial TV, picked up from American ones, is that when another part resumes after the adverts there has to be a recap of what's gone before, as though the audience are so stupid that they'll have forgotten what occurred immediately before three minutes of daft commercials.

And then there's the bottom line - budget, or the lack of it. There could and should be wide-ranging and serious documentaries on any subject you care to mention, but of course the justification always given (the same as for anything else) is that there isn't enough money. Never enough dough. The days of television of the calibre of Kenneth Clark's Civilization, Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man, Attenborough's Life on Earth are long gone and won't be coming back. Not enough money, you see. And probably even less ambition on that sort of scale.

[Udayana]

There's lots of great lectures on youtube about almost anything ..  they don't have the Horizon production team obscuring the details.

[Rhiannon]

I remember the latter quite well, and feel the same about it as you do.  I also remember 'Extreme Pilgrim', though I didn't see the third episode.  I felt that it was all very shallow, with POJ trying to get into the guts of a philosophy in far too short a time to get anywhere.  In fact, that is my opinion on most similar kinds of programme.  All they do is scratch the surface.

I think there's a perception amongst some that today's audiences don't have the attention span to be able to sustain concentration on a serious subject over, let's say, six or seven or eight hours in weekly instalments (which counts for nothing in these days of recording devices). One of the most annoying features of modern British documentaries on commercial TV, picked up from American ones, is that when another part resumes after the adverts there has to be a recap of what's gone before, as though the audience are so stupid that they'll have forgotten what occurred immediately before three minutes of daft commercials.

And then there's the bottom line - budget, or the lack of it. There could and should be wide-ranging and serious documentaries on any subject you care to mention, but of course the justification always given (the same as for anything else) is that there isn't enough money. Never enough dough. The days of television of the calibre of Kenneth Clark's Civilization, Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man, Attenborough's Life on Earth are long gone and won't be coming back. Not enough money, you see. And probably even less ambition on that sort of scale.

Attenborough's jumped ship to Sky or some-such. We can look forward to the big budget documentaries coming to us via Sky, not to mention Netflix and Amazon Prime. They are the guys with the money and, increasingly, the ambition.

[Shaker]

I hope you're right. I wish I could say it could still be the national public broadcaster rather than Murdoch's outfit, but if it all comes down to money, he has it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On the other hand Money doesn't necessarily mean great.

The spending of it on blockbuster documentaries might merely result in hosts delivering sentences where every word uttered is done so from a completely different location.

[Shaker]

On the other hand Money doesn't necessarily mean great.

You're absolutely right, it doesn't; but in today's world there's precisely zero chance of anything with even a fraction of the vision, ambition and scope of the programmes I mentioned earlier without the megabucks budget.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On the other hand Money doesn't necessarily mean great.

You're absolutely right, it doesn't; but in today's world there's precisely zero chance of anything with even a fraction of the vision, ambition and scope of the programmes I mentioned earlier without the megabucks budget.

Have Sky produced a ''great'' in this category?

[Shaker]

Not to my knowledge. But it's highly unlikely the BBC will nowadays.

[Rhiannon]

I hope you're right. I wish I could say it could still be the national public broadcaster rather than Murdoch's outfit, but if it all comes down to money, he has it.

I don't know about documentaries but Sky are producing some exceptionally good drama.

[Hope]

FTR I have long found Antiques Roadshow to be very annoying, which is why I don't watch it very much. It is mostly rich people with money and property,but no class or taste,wanting to know how much something they don't particularly like is worth.

Don't watch it much either, but I've always assumed that it was largely about the lower middle class and even some working class folk discovering something that a relative had picked up for a song, only to discover that it was worth - ether not even that, or loadsa money, tuus creating problems over how to afford to insure it.  Perhaps that just reflects the few shows I've watched.

[Hope]

... is that the BBC plainly shows it's hand.

And that hand is ...?

Could it be something to do with the charter - and hence the politicians' fault?  We're in a time of review.  Perhaps you ought to indicate that it is now time to add atheism and humanism to the roster - I'd support you.  Mind you, I probably wouldn't listen to them, any more than I listen to the existing dross.

[ippy]

... is that the BBC plainly shows it's hand.

And that hand is ...?

Could it be something to do with the charter - and hence the politicians' fault?  We're in a time of review.  Perhaps you ought to indicate that it is now time to add atheism and humanism to the roster - I'd support you.  Mind you, I probably wouldn't listen to them, any more than I listen to the existing dross.

What I actually wrote Hope, was:

"The only good thing I can see about the BBC's ban on the non-religious from T4TD, is that the BBC plainly shows it's hand".

Now doesn't that make more sense than your edited version?

Being disingenuous it's comes as second nature to you and so typical.

ippy

[Hope]

What I actually wrote Hope, was:

"The only good thing I can see about the BBC's ban on the non-religious from T4TD, is that the BBC plainly shows it's hand".

Now doesn't that make more sense than your edited version?

Being disingenuous it's comes as second nature to you and so typical.

ippy

ippy, perhaps you don't understand quoting.  As you will probably have noticed, I rarely quote a full post, choosing instead to pick a pertinent section that 1) points to the post I am referring to, and 2) highlights a point I want clarified or to disagree with.  In this case, I wanted to know what 'hand' you believe that the BBC is plainly showing.

Perhaps you will now answer that question rather than practising the disingenuousness you so love to accuse others of.

[ippy]

What I actually wrote Hope, was:

"The only good thing I can see about the BBC's ban on the non-religious from T4TD, is that the BBC plainly shows it's hand".

Now doesn't that make more sense than your edited version?

Being disingenuous it's comes as second nature to you and so typical.

ippy

ippy, perhaps you don't understand quoting.  As you will probably have noticed, I rarely quote a full post, choosing instead to pick a pertinent section that 1) points to the post I am referring to, and 2) highlights a point I want clarified or to disagree with.  In this case, I wanted to know what 'hand' you believe that the BBC is plainly showing.

Perhaps you will now answer that question rather than practising the disingenuousness you so love to accuse others of.

My apologies I scan read, (a bad habit of mine), and read you wrong it's entirely my mistake, I should not have accused you of being disingenuous.
 
The hand the BBC is showing is very difficult nail down and very clever of them I suppose it's the many years of practice they have had and of course honing down any awkward angles they felt they needed to smooth out.

Bearing in mind no matter how much I think that religions are man made nonsense, I cannot see that it would be in any way right to stop making programmes for those that believe these things or are of faith, put it how you like, I assume we're at one on that, at least.

T4TD is the most blatant in your face example of how they do their best to confound any attempt by non-religious people to speak freely in and unchallenged.

I'm not for one moment saying non-religious never have their say Steve Jones was on that Sunday 10am BBC1 TV show two weeks ago and it almost goes almost unnoticed how the show was run, as all of this type of programme it's a sport of the BBC Religion and Ethics Department.

If anyone were to look into how the R&E department manages to limit/confound any non-religious content it's done in such detailed way by them if it's picked out or highlighted in any way it makes the picker look as though they have a lot more problems than they have.

I can appreciate that the odd time here and there that the non-religious person wishing to comment would get pushed onto the back foot, but when it happens most of the and time after time, rarely going the other way perhaps it might be telling something.

The behaviour I've described above is very much the same way the BBC touches the tiller a little here, a little there, when it does it's best to put out it's own political agenda, I think it is in fact exactly similar.

It works because if you or anyone else tries to describe how they do their best put their agenda into our heads, look how much it takes to make even the smallest swipe at them.       

Of course anyone complains, point the finger, "look conspiracy theorist nutter"! Largely it works; clever, you've got to hand it to them.

I have to underline that I have no problem with religion being broadcast by the BBC, I just don't bother with it unless I'm working on that particular programme, what it's presenting and in what way is it being presented. 

I have not been into finding a way to limit the BBC's religion output never have been all I want to see and hear is some regular programming of unchallenged non-religious broadcasting put on air without having to go out via the "BBC's Religion & Ethics Department".

ippy

 

   

[Hope]

My apologies I scan read, (a bad habit of mine), and read you wrong it's entirely my mistake, I should not have accused you of being disingenuous.

Thanks for that, ippy.  Have to admit to having done that in my time as well, possibly more so than I'd care to admit.  It is all too easy to skim read if one has been off the board for a while - and that can be na hour or two on the most popular.
 
The reason I ask whether it is a hand being shown or not is because I've never managed to work out exactly what the charter says on this issue.  To tell you the truth I've never had time to read the charter from start to finish - I wonder whether many have.

Does that instruct the R&E Department to avoid or 'ban' non-religious items within its remit?  Does it perhaps suggest that, with all the scientific and political programming that exists, the need for specifically atheist/non-religious input into things like T4TD is unnecessary?  After all, as can be seen from many of the threads here, atheism and science sit hand-in-hand with each other for many.

Note, I'm not saying that this IS what happens; just asking whether this reflects what is happening.

As I say, perhaps now is the time put the idea forward when Government are actually listening to the public.  I would assume the it is difficult to go agin the terms of the charter in between review periods.

[SweetPea]

Attenborough's jumped ship to Sky or some-such....
 

Checked this out and according to the Graun he's to.... "narrate a new landmark natural history series about the relationship between predators and their prey...." for the Beeb to be broadcast in the autumn.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/21/sir-david-attenborough-bbc-the-hunt

Good for him at 89!

[ippy]

My apologies I scan read, (a bad habit of mine), and read you wrong it's entirely my mistake, I should not have accused you of being disingenuous.

Thanks for that, ippy.  Have to admit to having done that in my time as well, possibly more so than I'd care to admit.  It is all too easy to skim read if one has been off the board for a while - and that can be na hour or two on the most popular.
 
The reason I ask whether it is a hand being shown or not is because I've never managed to work out exactly what the charter says on this issue.  To tell you the truth I've never had time to read the charter from start to finish - I wonder whether many have.

Does that instruct the R&E Department to avoid or 'ban' non-religious items within its remit?  Does it perhaps suggest that, with all the scientific and political programming that exists, the need for specifically atheist/non-religious input into things like T4TD is unnecessary?  After all, as can be seen from many of the threads here, atheism and science sit hand-in-hand with each other for many.

Note, I'm not saying that this IS what happens; just asking whether this reflects what is happening.

As I say, perhaps now is the time put the idea forward when Government are actually listening to the public.  I would assume the it is difficult to go agin the terms of the charter in between review periods.

I did, at the last charter review I managed to get into eleventh place with the complaint I was making about their, if not deliberate, the pretty obvious fact that unchallenged non-religious voices to have as near to zero time on air as the BBC thinks it can get away with..

T4TD, it has been a slot that has been putting over unchallenged religious reflections on air for a very long time each religion has it's slot and all the religions do have their slot, and without remembering verbatim how they put it, it's an established rule that they do not comment unfavorably on each other which is fair enough it applies to all.

It's the principle and more that non-religious voices should be heard on the this slot and on the same basis, there are many people like me that share a humanist outlook on the world and don't even know that they are humanist thoughts they are having and that they are not alone with these humanist thoughts in their heads and while respecting that this exclusive religion slot has had this unwarranted exclusivity for many years it's about time there were some other voices heard; it doesn't have to be a takeover.

We keep on hearing about living with English principles, living in the English way, I thought one of those English principles was something to do with fair play?

T4TD is the most blatant way the BBC discriminates against the bordering on 50% of non-religious people there now are here in the UK, T4TD is only a part of it.

The focus always seems to be on T4TD but believe me that's only the tip of the iceberg.

I'm putting in my ten pennyworth again this time too.

Just try asking via an email to the BBC complaints department and ask them why they don't include non-religious voices on T4TD, you will get their standard answer starting with, "It's an opportunity etc etc",  if you can get your head around that reply you're a better man than I Gungerdin, try it it's an exercise in illogical double speak strange is somewhere near a description but even that's not quite it.
(I would be pleased if you were to do this via BBC Complaint's, they really show their hand and also shows it's not in my imagination).

The BBC isn't quite the friendly avuncular friend it likes us to think it is, believe me.   

ippy

[Hope]

Just try asking via an email to the BBC complaints department and ask them why they don't include non-religious voices on T4TD, you will get their standard answer starting with, "It's an opportunity etc etc",  if you can get your head around that reply you're a better man than I Gungerdin, try it it's an exercise in illogical double speak strange is somewhere near a description but even that's not quite it.

I did just this a couple of years ago; the response I got was along the lines that they were looking at the possibility, and waiting to hear back from the BHA and NSS.

Seem to remember that earlier this year, there were a number of T4TD-like slots trialed on Radio 2 that were actually predominantly non-religious in nature.  Not sure what the outcome was eventually.

The BBC isn't quite the friendly avuncular friend it likes us to think it is, believe me.   

Not sure that it has ever even tried to be a friendly, avuncular beast, ippy.  After all, I've heard far more critical and comedic treatment of Christianity on the BBC than of any other religion, and of religious thought than of non-religious thought.

[ippy]

Just try asking via an email to the BBC complaints department and ask them why they don't include non-religious voices on T4TD, you will get their standard answer starting with, "It's an opportunity etc etc",  if you can get your head around that reply you're a better man than I Gungerdin, try it it's an exercise in illogical double speak strange is somewhere near a description but even that's not quite it.

I did just this a couple of years ago; the response I got was along the lines that they were looking at the possibility, and waiting to hear back from the BHA and NSS.

Seem to remember that earlier this year, there were a number of T4TD-like slots trialed on Radio 2 that were actually predominantly non-religious in nature.  Not sure what the outcome was eventually.

The BBC isn't quite the friendly avuncular friend it likes us to think it is, believe me.   

Not sure that it has ever even tried to be a friendly, avuncular beast, ippy.  After all, I've heard far more critical and comedic treatment of Christianity on the BBC than of any other religion, and of religious thought than of non-religious thought.

I've read all you say; they still avoid any unchallenged non-religious voices speaking out on air anytime, the ingenuity they use to achieve this end takes some believing, how would you feel if it was visa versa and I think that would be equally unjust.

As I've said, there has to be the odd occasion someone trying to express a point even in the best run organisations must expect a snooker from time to time, that's life, but when it happens something like over a good 90% of the time; no need to be Einstein. 

Try Complaints again, 'it's not an answer', it takes some believing how they have put it, it must be very embarrassing for the BBC staff having to put it out for public view, this present standard response has been there for at least some 10 to 12 years to my knowledge.

The response from the BBC is worse than anything Vlad puts out, it's that bad.

ippy