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

Rrose Selavy · 17th November 2009, 09:32 AM

Quote:

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 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'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, 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...ht-for-the-day

Beerina · 17th November 2009, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

Quote:

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 · 17th November 2009, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

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 · 17th November 2009, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

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 · 17th November 2009, 11:51 PM

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 · 18th November 2009, 02:58 AM

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 · 18th November 2009, 03:44 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

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.

Hux · 18th November 2009, 07:13 AM

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 · 18th November 2009, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 18th November 2009, 12:12 PM

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 · 19th November 2009, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by 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

Give me spunky Chris over the avuncular Terry any day.

Last of the Fraggles · 20th November 2009, 08:12 AM

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 · 20th November 2009, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

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.

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

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

17th November 2009, 09:32 AM	#1
Rrose Selavy Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 1,156	BBC rejects call for non-religious speakers on Thought for the Day Quote: 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 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'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, 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...ht-for-the-day

17th November 2009, 10:30 AM	#2
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 14,373	Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy Quote: 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.
	__________________ Reid Fleming, World's Toughest Milkman, in *A Day Like Any Other* The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

17th November 2009, 03:10 PM	#3
KingMerv00 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 8,796	Originally Posted by Beerina 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.
	__________________ TEEK on Merv: He really is cute. Not in a tickle-me-Elmo way, either. Cicero: [Ann Coulter] doesn't require defending. Her education, college appearances, and book sales speak for themselves

17th November 2009, 11:51 PM	#5
Filippo Lippi Muse Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Nottingham Posts: 663	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."
	__________________ "There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." - Richard Dawkins

18th November 2009, 02:58 AM	#6
Dave Rogers The Unbanned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Notlob Posts: 8,013	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
	__________________ "I guess for Truthers the great thing about Google is that it abolishes context automatically, thus saving your precious reserves of stupid for more important tasks." - Dr. Adequate GENERATION 6: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

17th November 2009, 03:30 PM	#4
mbp Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Copenhagen Posts: 321	Originally Posted by Beerina 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.

18th November 2009, 03:44 AM	#7
Aitch Apprentice Crud Puppy Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,443	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers 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.
	__________________ There's less to this than meets the eye!

18th November 2009, 07:13 AM	#8
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	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.
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	__________________ *...people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves* - MARDUK

18th November 2009, 08:28 AM	#9
Dave Rogers The Unbanned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Notlob Posts: 8,013	Originally Posted by 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. 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
	__________________ "I guess for Truthers the great thing about Google is that it abolishes context automatically, thus saving your precious reserves of stupid for more important tasks." - Dr. Adequate GENERATION 6: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

18th November 2009, 12:12 PM	#10
Filippo Lippi Muse Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Nottingham Posts: 663	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
	__________________ "There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." - Richard Dawkins Last edited by Filippo Lippi; 18th November 2009 at 12:20 PM.

19th November 2009, 06:03 AM	#11
commandlinegamer Muse Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Scotland Posts: 816	Originally Posted by 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 Give me spunky Chris over the avuncular Terry any day.

20th November 2009, 08:12 AM	#12
Last of the Fraggles Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 471	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?

20th November 2009, 08:55 AM	#13
Dave Rogers The Unbanned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Notlob Posts: 8,013	Originally Posted by 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. 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. Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles 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. Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles 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
	__________________ "I guess for Truthers the great thing about Google is that it abolishes context automatically, thus saving your precious reserves of stupid for more important tasks." - Dr. Adequate GENERATION 6: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.