BBC rejects call for non-religious speakers on Thought for the Day

[Rrose Selavy]

Complaints were made earlier this year that banning atheists, secularist or humanists from taking part in Thought for the Day breached the BBC's guidelines on impartiality.

However, today the trust said it had found that Thought for the Day is "religious output and that it is a matter of editorial discretion for the BBC executive and its director general as editor-in-chief as to whether the BBC broadcasts a slot commenting on an issue of the day from a faith perspective".

The BBC Trust (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/bbc-trust) editorial standards chairman, Richard Tait, said: "We understand that some people feel strongly about this issue and have given it careful consideration.

"However, we have concluded that the current arrangements do not breach BBC editorial guidelines and specifically requirements of due impartiality in content."

The BBC Trust confirmed that Thought for the Day must comply with requirements of due impartiality and that any future complaints on particular broadcasts would be judged against these standards on a case-by-case basis.

Thought for the Day is broadcast at about 7.45am on Monday to Saturday as part of Radio 4 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/radio4)'s flagship Today programme.

Secular and humanist groups have long campaigned for the slot to be opened up to people outside of religious groups, and in January this year a non-religious version, called Thought for the Afternoon, was broadcast on Radio 4's Saturday afternoon programme, iPM.


The National Secular Society (http://www.secularism.org.uk/), which was one of the complainants, said it would continue to look at "other ways of challenging this unjustifiable slot"




More here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/17/bbc-thought-for-the-day

[Beerina]

However, today the trust said it had found that Thought for the Day is "religious output and that it is a matter of editorial discretion for the BBC executive and its director general as editor-in-chief as to whether the BBC broadcasts a slot commenting on an issue of the day from a faith perspective".



It's interesting that, in the US, atheism has been ruled by the SC to be a religion insofar as it is protected not just as free speech, but also by the religion clause of the First Amendment. Hence NPR and PBS (radio and TV closest equivalent to the BBC), funded by the government, could not make such a claim and get away with it.

In other words, "There is no god" is protected not just as free speech, but as a religious statement, as far as the US Constitution goes.

[KingMerv00]

It's interesting that, in the US, atheism has been ruled by the SC to be a religion insofar as it is protected not just as free speech, but also by the religion clause of the First Amendment. Hence NPR and PBS (radio and TV closest equivalent to the BBC), funded by the government, could not make such a claim and get away with it.

In other words, "There is no god" is protected not just as free speech, but as a religious statement, as far as the US Constitution goes.

The courts are even smarter than that. I seem to remember (but I forget where) that courts acknowledge atheism is not a religion in the philosophical sense but should be classified as one in a constitutional sense.

[mbp]

It's interesting that, in the US, atheism has been ruled by the SC to be a religion insofar as it is protected not just as free speech, but also by the religion clause of the First Amendment. Hence NPR and PBS (radio and TV closest equivalent to the BBC), funded by the government, could not make such a claim and get away with it.I'm sure they could as it's not a claim, but a statement of fact. The programme is indeed religious in nature and I don't think anyone disputes that. No one has claimed that it represents all religions and so the question of whether that includes "no religion" is irrelevant.

Because this is not a free speech issue. It's about whether or not broadcasting this specific religious programme breaches the BBC editorial guidelines.

[Filippo Lippi]

The head of Radio 4 said that Thought for the Day gives a uniquely faith based view of the news, as if all the other reports on Today end, "which is a bad thing, but don't bother praying because god doesn't exist."

[Dave Rogers]

Well, this is just going to make life even more difficult for me. At the moment, I can switch over in protest from Today on Radio 4 to Terry Wogan on Radio 2 as soon as Religious Indoctrination For The Day comes on; I'm usually safely at work before anybody says anything religious on that show. But Terry's on the way out now, and soon I'll be stuck with the choice between God For A Day and Chris Evans; I'm not sure which I find more irritating.

Dave

[Aitch]

But Terry's on the way out now, and soon I'll be stuck with the choice between God For A Day and Chris Evans; I'm not sure which I find more irritating.


There's a lot to be said for Radio 3. IMO. :cool:

[Hux]

Thought for the Day was always a religious programme. Leave it to these people. Why any secular humanist/ sensible person/ sane person would want to intrude in this rubbish is beyond me.

[Dave Rogers]

Thought for the Day was always a religious programme. Leave it to these people. Why any secular humanist/ sensible person/ sane person would want to intrude in this rubbish is beyond me.

Well, it's shoehorned into the middle of Radio 4's "Today" programme every weekday morning, which is one of the best news and current affairs discussion programmes there is. I wasn't joking when I said I switch over to Radio 2 when it comes on; I find "Today" to be very informative and entertaining listening in the car on the way to work, except for the tedious, irritating and sometimes mildly offensive moralising by a religious figure that interrupts it every now and then.

Dave

[Filippo Lippi]

At least they don't allow Anne Atkins on any more.

eta. And I turn over when TFTD comes on... Unless it's the sikh fella or Lionel Blue

[commandlinegamer]

Well, this is just going to make life even more difficult for me. At the moment, I can switch over in protest from Today on Radio 4 to Terry Wogan on Radio 2 as soon as Religious Indoctrination For The Day comes on; I'm usually safely at work before anybody says anything religious on that show. But Terry's on the way out now, and soon I'll be stuck with the choice between God For A Day and Chris Evans; I'm not sure which I find more irritating.

Dave

Give me spunky Chris over the avuncular Terry any day.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Non-religious speakers on Thought For The Day seems like taking the idea of 'balance' too far. Some programs are specific in the nature of their content. Nobody argues that we should have an episode of Top Gear handed over to the environmentalists to promote cycling or that Countryfile should occasionally look instead at life in the inner cities.

Thought For The Day is religious programming. If you don't like it, turn it off. If enough people turn it off it will get moved to a less prominent time slot.

If someone wants to give a secular or atheist view on the news of the day then that should be possible - but isn't that basically what the news is anyway?

[Dave Rogers]

Non-religious speakers on Thought For The Day seems like taking the idea of 'balance' too far. Some programs are specific in the nature of their content. Nobody argues that we should have an episode of Top Gear handed over to the environmentalists to promote cycling or that Countryfile should occasionally look instead at life in the inner cities.

And yet an episode of Top Gear found, to its chagrin, that cycling was a very effective way of getting across Central London, and a Countryfile programme on - for example - urban foxes would probably make excellent television.

But the problem with Thought for the Day is that it isn't a separate programme, it's a slot within the Today programme.

Thought For The Day is religious programming. If you don't like it, turn it off. If enough people turn it off it will get moved to a less prominent time slot.

Difficult to measure, though. It's possible to get an idea of how many people listen to Today, but without specifically asking in a poll it's rather harder to find out how many people specifically object to one segment within it.

If someone wants to give a secular or atheist view on the news of the day then that should be possible - but isn't that basically what the news is anyway?

No, because what TFTD does is to allow a religious person to give an unchallenged view on some issue of the day, presented with the weight of authority granted by the implicit approval of the BBC of their point of view. The rest of the programme is very careful, when bringing in guests to discuss issues, to try and invite guests with alternative points of view. So any secular or atheist view expressed on the programme is presented in counterpoint to an opposing view, but for one short slot a religious view is presented without dissent. That is the reason why it's unbalanced.

Dave