Surprising BBC

[ippy]

The fact that religious broadcasting is not highly publicised and often goes on air at odd times shows how unpopular it is.  I don't know anyone who watches or listens to it and I watch and listen to a lot of stuff, and am constantly going through the 'Guide' to see what's on.

There's a Freeview channel called TBN which broadcasts preachers from the USA, that seems to be on when most people are asleep.  I'm only aware of it because I often get up in the night and flick through to see what's on, anyway that's not the Beeb,

Strange how opinions change:  only a few years ago Christians on forums were complaining about the BBC's anti-Christian bias in many areas!  Post after post was complaining about that, floo may remember.  I never saw the bias and don't see the opposite now, 'Songs of Praise' may be a bit naff (if it's still going), but I always thought it was so nothing new there.

Brownie, how do you account for the ban by the BBC of non-religious voices on "Thought for the Day"?

ippy

[Brownie]

I don't, I didn't know about it and haven't listened to "Thought for the day" for years.  If that is the case, I think it is wrong.  I didn't know it was always some sort of religious thought anyway.  Was it not briefly on TV late at night at one time or was that something else?

[Harrowby Hall]

It seems that this ... err .... debate has been going for some time. TFTD has its own Wikipedia entry which states that in 2002 following a letter signed by 102 people from the National Secular Society, British Humanist Society and Rational Press Association, Richard Dawkins (no less) was allowed two and a half minutes to deliver an atheist message - though not in the TFTD slot.

The BBC consider that TFTD provides a unique faith-based contribution in the middle of an essentially secular 3 hour long news programme.

[Bubbles]

You don't need non religious voices on programmes that specifically come at something from a "religious" POV of various faiths.

There are plenty of programmes on politics to science that put the non religious POV.
And other thoughts.

A programme like TFTD just caters for the religious POV.

 It's like campaigning to have non religious songs on Songs of Praise. 

TFTD should change its name to " Religious thought for the day"

It would stop the NSS and the rest from sulking because they feel they have missed something.

 

The remit of the programme is religious TFTD.

Some programmes cater for a minority group, TFTD is one.

It wouldn't be the same if any old Tom, Dick or Harry was on it 

[ippy]

I don't, I didn't know about it and haven't listened to "Thought for the day" for years.  If that is the case, I think it is wrong.  I didn't know it was always some sort of religious thought anyway.  Was it not briefly on TV late at night at one time or was that something else?

Brownie, T4TD is a small part of BBC's radio 4 programme "Today" six days a week, ask the BBC why they refuse to have any non-religious contributions on T4TD, the answer starts with: It's an opertunity; see if you can manage to get your head around this explaination, talk about twisted logic.

ippy

[Brownie]

Oh well it does seem a bit twisted I suppose but I would have to listen to it first.  Rose says it caters for a religious point of view for a few minutes in the midst of secular programmes.  Does it only 'do' Christianity or other religious view points catered for.  It's many years ago but I have a recollection of a JW speaking once.  It was very quick though.
I'll have a look in the paper and see when it's on.

Later:  googled it.  It's on during the midnight news (I seem to remember it being on earlier than that that was years ago), so will have a minority audience.  I might give it a listen, if I remember.   All religions can contribute, not a specifically Christian programme.

The Moral Maze looks quite good!

[Harrowby Hall]

  Does it only 'do' Christianity or other religious view points catered for.

Over the years there have been a number of non-Christian contributors (though I cannot recall a JW) including Rabbi Lionel Blue and Indarjit Singh who were both very popular.

Later:  googled it.  It's on during the midnight news.

It's on at about 7,50am during the Today programme.

[ippy]

Oh well it does seem a bit twisted I suppose but I would have to listen to it first.  Rose says it caters for a religious point of view for a few minutes in the midst of secular programmes.  Does it only 'do' Christianity or other religious view points catered for.  It's many years ago but I have a recollection of a JW speaking once.  It was very quick though.
I'll have a look in the paper and see when it's on.

Later:  googled it.  It's on during the midnight news (I seem to remember it being on earlier than that that was years ago), so will have a minority audience.  I might give it a listen, if I remember.   All religions can contribute, not a specifically Christian programme.

The Moral Maze looks quite good!

Any religion can be and are reflected on T4TD the point I was making about the difference between how religious and the non-religious people are represented by the BBC is very clever and it's so easily mised.

Seriously Brownie just take note of the religious programmes on the BBC where the religion goes on air without a challenge of any kind and then take note of the programmes that include various non-religious people, that go out to air unchallenged.

By the way I have no problem with unchallenged religious programming, allthough naturaly I don't listen or watch any of it.

ippy

[Brownie]

7.50 on the Today programme, thanks HH.  Used to hear a lot more from Rabbi Lionel Blue, I really liked him and have read a couple of his books. Love Indarjit Singh.  Yes there was a JW chap, fairly young, talking about what his faith meant to me.  No proselytation but T42day is not a platform for that.

I'll try to remember to tune in at that time.Ippy, if someone has a short slot to talk about something important to them, I wouldn't challenge them.

If it is a debate, I would, but that's quite different.  I accept that we all believe different things - at different times too, that includes you and me.  Unless someone is broadcasting hate or obsenity, or advocating violence, it isn't my business what they say.

Back in the day when I did hear Thought for Today my opinion was that it was not unpleasant, gentle, fairly innocuous, sometimes interesting but, most of all, quite brief.  It may have changed, when i've heard it a couple of times I will give you an up-to-date opinion.

Certainly I see no reason why Secular Humanists cannot speak on the programme.  I would very much love to hear a Ba'hai.

The important thing for all the contributors, religious or not, is not to use the programme to do down any other belief system.   There are plenty of discussion programmes for that on TV and radio.  However I doubt anyone would do that on 'Thought".

Anyway thanks for reminding me of this small programme, I look forward to hearing it and think I will enjoy it.

Just thought:  How did the move go?

[Brownie]

I listened to three episodes of 'Thought for Today' last night before retiring, and will listen to more.  It was so much easier to find them on Radio 4's site than to make an appointment to listen to them when they go outon air, I'd be bound to forget.   I heard : Akhandadi Das (? sp), Rev Giles Fraser and Rev Michael Banner (the latter was talking about prisons which particularly interests me).  I hope I've remembered their names correctly.   Very very interesting.  Now what is the problem?  The fact that they are all people of religion?
Nothing to stop humanists writing to the BBC and asking if they can join or even have a 'Thought for Today' for themselves.  I'm happy with the one that i;, from what I heard, what is said is just as relevant to people of no faith.

[Harrowby Hall]

I listened to three episodes of 'Thought for Today' last night before retiring, and will listen to more.  It was so much easier to find them on Radio 4's site than to make an appointment to listen to them when they go outon air, I'd be bound to forget.   I heard : Akhandadi Das (? sp), Rev Giles Fraser and Rev Michael Banner (the latter was talking about prisons which particularly interests me).  I hope I've remembered their names correctly.   Very very interesting.  Now what is the problem?  The fact that they are all people of religion?
Nothing to stop humanists writing to the BBC and asking if they can join or even have a 'Thought for Today' for themselves.  I'm happy with the one that i;, from what I heard, what is said is just as relevant to people of no faith.

I can quite understand the desire of non-faith organisations to join the roster of presenters for Thought for the Day and I don't think that this little slot would suffer. The majority of presenters make no attempt to proselytise nor engage in polemics - merely present a point of view influenced by their philosophy.

[Brownie]

I agree HH.  It's up to them to campaign for it.  On the other hand, the BBC is largely secular, indeed many people of faith object to the anti-faith bias of the BBC (I've never noticed it nor has it bothered me but I've heard it said often), so why bother?  Well, that's up to them I suppose, they see it differently.

[ippy]

7.50 on the Today programme, thanks HH.  Used to hear a lot more from Rabbi Lionel Blue, I really liked him and have read a couple of his books. Love Indarjit Singh.  Yes there was a JW chap, fairly young, talking about what his faith meant to me.  No proselytation but T42day is not a platform for that.

I'll try to remember to tune in at that time.Ippy, if someone has a short slot to talk about something important to them, I wouldn't challenge them.

If it is a debate, I would, but that's quite different.  I accept that we all believe different things - at different times too, that includes you and me.  Unless someone is broadcasting hate or obsenity, or advocating violence, it isn't my business what they say.

Back in the day when I did hear Thought for Today my opinion was that it was not unpleasant, gentle, fairly innocuous, sometimes interesting but, most of all, quite brief.  It may have changed, when i've heard it a couple of times I will give you an up-to-date opinion.

Certainly I see no reason why Secular Humanists cannot speak on the programme.  I would very much love to hear a Ba'hai.

The important thing for all the contributors, religious or not, is not to use the programme to do down any other belief system.   There are plenty of discussion programmes for that on TV and radio.  However I doubt anyone would do that on 'Thought".

Anyway thanks for reminding me of this small programme, I look forward to hearing it and think I will enjoy it.

Just thought:  How did the move go?

Brownie, have a listen to the BBC radio or TV any channel/station and make a note of when you hear an unchallenged non-religious voice of any kind, it'll be a long job, it won't take too many of your fingers when counting, if any, why?

Sometimes it seems to be an unchallenged non-religious voice and then you realise, of course there's a voiceover and stil no unchallenged non-religious voice again, as usual.

ippy

[Brownie]

Maybe the discussion isn't one to be challenged, for example if there was a street riot and vandalism and a person of religion commented on it, talking about lack of values, disenchanted youth, umemployment, uncaring parents, the fact that the speaker is a religionist is irrelevant.  Anyone could say those things.

However I will make a note when I come across anything that gives a specifically religious viewpoint with no opportunity for anyone else to contradict, then we can ask why.

[ippy]

Maybe the discussion isn't one to be challenged, for example if there was a street riot and vandalism and a person of religion commented on it, talking about lack of values, disenchanted youth, umemployment, uncaring parents, the fact that the speaker is a religionist is irrelevant.  Anyone could say those things.

However I will make a note when I come across anything that gives a specifically religious viewpoint with no opportunity for anyone else to contradict, then we can ask why.

If it happened that the NON-religious missed out now and again and happend to be challenged from time to time; I really wouldn't bother to make a comment, how ever it does make one think when NON-religious people on BBC radio and tv, are NOT able to make any unchallenged comments, it is quite reasonable to wonder why?

I'm not awaiting your comments on this subject, I'm pointing out to you how it is, if you like to think I'm talking out of my hat, that's up to you; do have a look or listen for yourself and I dare say you will find there are in fact no broadcasts anywhere on the BBC where a NON-religious person is able to speak out freely in the same way any religious person want's to do and is able to do so at more or less any time they like.

Again I am a secularist and would never want to restrict the freedom of religion or the freedom from religion, so, I don't listen to religious broadcasting and at the same time don't want to stop it being broadcast.

You seem to have misunderstood my previous mailing, that's why this lot.

ippy

[Brownie]

I do get it ippy.  My problem is I am a bit vague when watching TV and listening to the radio, I miss loads. Sometimes I'll watch something with concentration for three quarters of the time it is on and then zone out for the last quarter.  I've always been like that I'm afraid, much prefer the written word.  Occasionally I watch things again to pick up on what I missed first time around.

I did like the T42day clips that I listened to last night but they were short and to the point.

Being as most non-drama programmes are not religious and do not have people of religion in them, and there are plenty of questions, challenges and arguments, I don't really see what you are getting at but I'll make an effort.

[jeremyp]

7.50 on the Today programme, thanks HH.  Used to hear a lot more from Rabbi Lionel Blue, I really liked him and have read a couple of his books.

Towards the end, he became a bit of a parody of himself. He was definitely past his sell-by date. However, he will always be better than Jonathan Sacks.

[ippy]

I do get it ippy.  My problem is I am a bit vague when watching TV and listening to the radio, I miss loads. Sometimes I'll watch something with concentration for three quarters of the time it is on and then zone out for the last quarter.  I've always been like that I'm afraid, much prefer the written word.  Occasionally I watch things again to pick up on what I missed first time around.

I did like the T42day clips that I listened to last night but they were short and to the point.

Being as most non-drama programmes are not religious and do not have people of religion in them, and there are plenty of questions, challenges and arguments, I don't really see what you are getting at but I'll makee an effort.

Brownie, how about the NON-religious rarely get to represent our views anywhere on the BBC without an ever present chaperone, unlike the way the religious are able to present more or less freely and unchallenged programmes about their beliefs, almost at will.

I suspect you would notice very quickly if the BBC were to present their programming visa versa to the above.

ippy

[jeremyp]

Brownie, how about the NON-religious rarely get to represent our views anywhere on the BBC without an ever present chaperone,

Have you ever listened to The Infinite Monkey Cage? Sometimes they have religious people on, but not usually and religion gets short shrift when it comes up.

[ippy]

I do get it ippy.  My problem is I am a bit vague when watching TV and listening to the radio, I miss loads. Sometimes I'll watch something with concentration for three quarters of the time it is on and then zone out for the last quarter.  I've always been like that I'm afraid, much prefer the written word.  Occasionally I watch things again to pick up on what I missed first time around.

I did like the T42day clips that I listened to last night but they were short and to the point.

Being as most non-drama programmes are not religious and do not have people of religion in them, and there are plenty of questions, challenges and arguments, I don't really see what you are getting at but I'll make an effort.

[Brownie]

You've quoted my last post ippy and it certainly does look as though I contradicted myself, sorry.  I hear what you are saying but  haven't seen programmes with secular people presenting their views, chaparoned.  That's something I don't understand but probably would if I saw it for myself and compared it to a similar programme featuring a religious speaker.  However I don't like sanitised religious programmes so never watch them.  It would take a great effort on my part to tune in to something like that, the only one I can think of off the top of my head is 'Songs of Praise' and I've not seen that for years. Watching or listening to a debate is something that would capture my interest but that isn't what you are talking about.  So - we are in status quo (which may be better than being in dire straits...).

[Hope]

Brownie, how about the NON-religious rarely get to represent our views anywhere on the BBC without an ever present chaperone, unlike the way the religious are able to present more or less freely and unchallenged programmes about their beliefs, almost at will.

I suspect you would notice very quickly if the BBC were to present their programming visa versa to the above.

ippy

Not sure that I would, ippy; after all, I don't recall the likes of David Attenborugh and Brian Cox being 'chaperoned'; if anything, it's the religious folk who seem to 'suffer' from this behaviour.  Mind you, if one is going to have a decent debate, then one needs a chair or co-ordinator to 'chaperone' the debate.

Perhaps you're watching a different BBC to most of us - the Basildon Broadcasting Corporation, perhaps? 

[ippy]

Not sure that I would, ippy; after all, I don't recall the likes of David Attenborugh and Brian Cox being 'chaperoned'; if anything, it's the religious folk who seem to 'suffer' from this behaviour.  Mind you, if one is going to have a decent debate, then one needs a chair or co-ordinator to 'chaperone' the debate.

Perhaps you're watching a different BBC to most of us - the Basildon Broadcasting Corporation, perhaps? 

Nothing surprising there Hope, just about what I would have expected from yourself.

ippy.

[Brownie]

I read Hope's post earlier today and was quite relieved in a way because I had begun to think I might be the only person on the planet who did not notice the sort of bias you talked about, also the only one not to know what current programmes are.  I spent ages scouring the TV guide.

No doubt you think Hope has a bias too, opposite to yours, but you cannot think I do so I have concluded that, if there are such programmes on BBC, they are so few and far between as to be hardly noticed.

(The marvellous David Attenborough and Brian Cox programmes are not things I would have put in the same category, never seen any bias in those and are enjoyed by all I would have thought.)

The BBC is pretty good on the whole.  Steve said much the same earlier in the thread, also something of the ilk that it when it pisses people off, it does so equally and I'd agree with that.  Quite honestly I've heard more Christians over the years moan about the Beeb than any other group (& I don't know why).

[ippy]

I read Hope's post earlier today and was quite relieved in a way because I had begun to think I might be the only person on the planet who did not notice the sort of bias you talked about, also the only one not to know what current programmes are.  I spent ages scouring the TV guide.

No doubt you think Hope has a bias too, opposite to yours, but you cannot think I do so I have concluded that, if there are such programmes on BBC, they are so few and far between as to be hardly noticed.

(The marvellous David Attenborough and Brian Cox programmes are not things I would have put in the same category, never seen any bias in those and are enjoyed by all I would have thought.)

The BBC is pretty good on the whole.  Steve said much the same earlier in the thread, also something of the ilk that it when it pisses people off, it does so equally and I'd agree with that.  Quite honestly I've heard more Christians over the years moan about the Beeb than any other group (& I don't know why).

It looks as though you have found a BBC programme where the NON-religious go unchallenged then; could you let me know which programme it was on and was it TV, or was it on the radio?

I've asked you the above because I've never seen anything that would be the NON-religious equivalent of, just for example, "An Island Parish", which is unadulterated religious propaganda.

Where is there anywhere on the BBC's coverage a programme especially set up for the now over 50% of Non-religious viewers and listeners? Perhaps a programme about Humanism?

Humanists and other Non-religious people as things are with the BBC, are seen and heard at present but, not without challenge, we are not seen and heard in the same way religious programmes are, where they are given free reign almost anywhere and whenever and without challenge.

Don't misread me I may not have any kind of high regard for the BBC's religious broadcasting attempts but there is no way I would want to prevent religious people having equal space on air. 

ippy