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

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Shaker]

That's exactly what I was referring to - nice one Prof.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's exactly what I was referring to - nice one Prof.

You are very welcome

[ippy]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ippy]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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 ...

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

And diddums again. What tiny feet you have when you stamp them.

Keep digging, old chap.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.