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

[Nearly Sane]

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)

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Hope]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

... 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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Bubbles]

I hope diplomats in various countries don't ever do their communicating by email or written word...........

🌏🙊💪🏽🤕

[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.

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

[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

[Nearly Sane]

Been reading the posts NS, it's all good fun, love it.

ippy

You may say that, I couldn't possibly comment....

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[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.

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