More religion on the BBC? Why?

[SusanDoris]

And this morning on Today we hear that the BBC Radio 4 is going to do more religious broadcasting. Fortunately,, Just before 9:0 a.m. the philosopher, whose name escapes me just at this precise moment, was interviewed with Mona Sadiki, and pointed out that since half the population have no religion, that should be made clear too. I despair, but at least he was given the last word.
Julian Bagginni
I'll remember his name in a minute and if the computer hasn't decided to do a 'this page can't be displayed' move, ;I'll edit.

[Shaker]

And this morning on Today we hear that the BBC Radio 4 is going to do more religious broadcasting.

What sort of thought process is it that leads someone who knows that religious adherence is gradually waning to think: "I know - we need more religious broadcasting to cater for its shrinking audience"? It sounds like a manufacturer deciding that what Britain really needs right now is more VCRs.

[ippy]

Have a look at the secular societies pages at the NSS, even if you think they're biased they're not completely wrong.

Less than half of our population has any need or want of religion so why should licence paying viewers and listeners need more religious broadcasting?

Surly pro rata there should be less religion, but there the BBC has always fawned over religion I suppose it's more of the same.

I noted today true to form the phone in on Jeremy Vine's programme about this increase was the last subject so that there was less time for listeners to be able to phone in and have their comments read out on air, little adjustments like this and they never miss, that's how they make it work.

ippy
 

[SusanDoris]

It is very annoying. At least at about 8:50 this morning Julian Baggini was given the last word rather than Mona Sadiki, but that is not enough.

[Gordon]

Presumably received wisdom at the BBC is that religion is 'important' so let's have some more: and wouldn't that would be just lovely.

I don't have a problem with the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, specifically meeting the needs of people with an interest in religion any more than I have a problem with them meeting the needs of people who have in interest in cricket or gardening: neither of which remotely interest me.

However, the continued intrusion of TFTD into a mainstream news programme seems incongruous to me: clearly the BBC haven't got the guts to remove the privilege afforded only to a religious viewpoint so their solution is to portray this as being part of a wider sensitivity to religion without realising that they seem to be pandering to the religious.

Had they just widened the scope of TFTD they would have solved one problem without creating another - but they fudged it and failed!

[ippy]

Has anyone managed to watch the 'Fern Britton Meets...' programme on BBC 1 tv Sunday mornings without having a bucket close to hand?

Just thought I'd ask

[ippy]

Presumably received wisdom at the BBC is that religion is 'important' so let's have some more: and wouldn't that would be just lovely.

I don't have a problem with the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, specifically meeting the needs of people with an interest in religion any more than I have a problem with them meeting the needs of people who have in interest in cricket or gardening: neither of which remotely interest me.

However, the continued intrusion of TFTD into a mainstream news programme seems incongruous to me: clearly the BBC haven't got the guts to remove the privilege afforded only to a religious viewpoint so their solution is to portray this as being part of a wider sensitivity to religion without realising that they seem to be pandering to the religious.

Had they just widened the scope of TFTD they would have solved one problem without creating another - but they fudged it and failed!

Much as I have the same view as yourself Gordon I think if you look into how their system works all of the religion and ethics elements go out via this department, can you imagine if the the output of the labour party had to go out via the concentrative party central office or visa versa, the effect on the potentially non-religious and ethical elements that are and could be put out to air by this BBC Religion & Ethics department bear some similarities.

There was a good series of programmes about free thinking a while back, it was put out at 11 pm on BBC radio 3, neither of these events I've related to by themselves amount to much and I'd be the first one to agree if they were the only occasions this kind of thing has happened, the R & E department are experts at wrong footing anything that doesn't promote the religion they fawn over, the trick is they don't miss and when you add all of the small adjustments they make it's no small item.

Regards ippy

[Owlswing]

Presumably received wisdom at the BBC is that religion is 'important' so let's have some more: and wouldn't that would be just lovely.

I don't have a problem with the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, specifically meeting the needs of people with an interest in religion any more than I have a problem with them meeting the needs of people who have in interest in cricket or gardening: neither of which remotely interest me.

However, the continued intrusion of TFTD into a mainstream news programme seems incongruous to me: clearly the BBC haven't got the guts to remove the privilege afforded only to a religious viewpoint so their solution is to portray this as being part of a wider sensitivity to religion without realising that they seem to be pandering to the religious.

Had they just widened the scope of TFTD they would have solved one problem without creating another - but they fudged it and failed!

Does not the level of religious broadcasting on the Beeb hark back to Lord Reith's views on the subject?

[Shaker]

Does not the level of religious broadcasting on the Beeb hark back to Lord Reith's views on the subject?

It's in there somewhere, no doubt.

But nearer at hand, I think, is the notion that certain wholly unfounded opinions about the nature of the universe are so special to those who hold them that they deserve wider coverage even though the number of those who hold said opinions is waning year on year on year. I'm not seeing the logic, myself, but then logic has next to nothing to do with it.

[Owlswing]

It's in there somewhere, no doubt.

But nearer at hand, I think, is the notion that certain wholly unfounded opinions about the nature of the universe are so special to those who hold them that they deserve wider coverage even though the number of those who hold said opinions is waning year on year on year. I'm not seeing the logic, myself, but then logic has next to nothing to do with it.

I gave up on BBCTV about ten years ago and apart from tghe odd documetary I have given up on BBC Radio as wll now.

Value for money? I seriously doubt it.

[jeremyp]

Have a look at the secular societies pages at the NSS, even if you think they're biased they're not completely wrong.

Less than half of our population has any need or want of religion so why should licence paying viewers and listeners need more religious broadcasting?

What percentage of the population listens to classical music? Is it more than half?  And yet the BBC has a whole radio station dedicated to it.

If the BBC only commissioned programming based on what the majority want, it would be a terrible broadcaster.

[jeremyp]

I gave up on BBCTV about ten years ago and apart from tghe odd documetary I have given up on BBC Radio as wll now.

In that case, you won't be bothered about how much religious programming there is on it.

[Owlswing]

In that case, you won't be bothered about how much religious programming there is on it.

Isn't that what I said?

[SusanDoris]

The difference between any other specialist programme - on cricket or anything else, all of which have known, objective evidence - and religious broadcasting is that religious broadcasting is the only one which has zero evidence for the imagined deity/ies assumed to exist by followers of such  beliefs, and then, my perennial objection, who teach these beliefs to children as fact.

[Rhiannon]

The difference between any other specialist programme - on cricket or anything else, all of which have known, objective evidence - and religious broadcasting is that religious broadcasting is the only one which has zero evidence for the imagined deity/ies assumed to exist by followers of such  beliefs, and then, my perennial objection, who teach these beliefs to children as fact.

People imagine that cricket is interesting. People even teach their children that England can be good st it again one day.

The biggest issue for me isn’t that religious broadcasting exists, but that it is so appallingly bad.

[ippy]

What percentage of the population listens to classical music? Is it more than half?  And yet the BBC has a whole radio station dedicated to it.

If the BBC only commissioned programming based on what the majority want, it would be a terrible broadcaster.

Have a look at the schedules of BBC radio 3 J P, it's not solely dedicated to classical music, the R & E Department has a 10 million a year budget that is often exceeded by millions at a time.

Regards ippy 

[ippy]

People imagine that cricket is interesting. People even teach their children that England can be good st it again one day.

The biggest issue for me isn’t that religious broadcasting exists, but that it is so appallingly bad.

Don't knock cricket Rhi, it's the only thing that can give so many insomniacs some relief from their condition.

Regards ippy

[Shaker]

People imagine that cricket is interesting. People even teach their children that England can be good st it again one day.

The biggest issue for me isn’t that religious broadcasting exists, but that it is so appallingly bad.

Another issue is that it's so appallingly limited. "More religious broadcasting" in practice means "More broadcasting of a broadly Christian nature [in a minority Christian society] with a token nod to Judaism and Islam now and again."

I've no idea if it's true or was true once but isn't any longer but I've certainly heard it said that paganism is the fastest-growing religious affiliation in Britain, yet I don't see them being catered for any more than I do Buddhists, or Jains, or Zoroastrians. Apart from the fevered imaginations in the letters pages of the Wail and the Torygraph you can't get away with pulling the old "Christian country" shtick any more. That won't wash.

[Rhiannon]

I’m not aware that pagans are asking for religious programmes. If they are anything like those made for Christians I’d rather be watching the cricket.

[Shaker]

I’m not aware that pagans are asking for religious programmes.

Nor am I.

The trouble is that it's perceived to be a remit of the BBC that the religious landscape of Britain is fairly and impartially represented. Now, I am the first one to say that I've no idea as to specific statistics, but my wild top-of-the-head guess is that there are (for example) more active, practising and professing pagans than there are (for example) Jains. If we're going to have religious broadcasting let's represent the whole of the current landscape, not the historically and culturally limited landscape.

I would love to see a thoughtful, well-made, well-researched documentary on modern British paganism. I would love to see the same on Buddhism. And Sikhism. These things ought to exist if the BBC walked the talk, but they don't. The BBC's idea of religious broadcasting is a vicar, an occasional rabbi and a vicar's wife who says stupid things now and again.

 

If they are anything like those made for Christians I’d rather be watching the cricket.

I'd watch anything rather than cricket. In fact I already do.

[floo]

Nor am I.

The trouble is that it's perceived to be a remit of the BBC that the religious landscape of Britain is fairly and impartially represented. Now, I am the first one to say that I've no idea as to specific statistics, but my wild top-of-the-head guess is that there are (for example) more active, practising and professing pagans than there are (for example) Jains. If we're going to have religious broadcasting let's represent the whole of the current landscape, not the historically and culturally limited landscape.

I would love to see a thoughtful, well-made, well-researched documentary on modern British paganism. I would love to see the same on Buddhism. And Sikhism. These things ought to exist if the BBC walked the talk, but they don't. The BBC's idea of religious broadcasting is a vicar, an occasional rabbi and a vicar's wife who says stupid things now and again.

 I'd watch anything rather than cricket. In fact I already do.

Watching cricket is worse than watching paint dry!

[Rhiannon]

Watching cricket makes me want to stick pins in my eyes. But patronising ‘religious’ programming makes me feel murderous.

[Shaker]

Watching cricket makes me want to stick pins in my eyes. But patronising ‘religious’ programming makes me feel murderous.

I've no problem with that.

It's better than religion making you actually murderous.

[ippy]

The BBC's just appointed an atheist to become the head of their R & E Department, with their past record they've got to be up to something?

Regards ippy

[Walter]

Watching cricket is worse than watching paint dry!

well that's a new one , never heard that before