Was the BBC Ever Intended To Be A 'Mouthpiece' of Atheism?

[Hope]

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.

[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.

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.

[Hope]

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. 

[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 - 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





     

[Shaker]

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 

[Hope]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Shaker]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[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

[Shaker]

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.

[ippy]

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

[Hope]

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?

[Shaker]

You mean the BBC's previous War Correspondent?

The very same.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[ippy]

You mean the BBC's previous War Correspondent?

Yes Hope, she went over to religion and lost it, yuk.

ippy

[Bubbles]

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!'

[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!'

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.