BBC Radio 4 'Thought for the Day' comes under new scrutiny

The place and role of BBC Radio 4’s Thought for the Day has been questioned again following comments from a prominent BBC presenter and an editorial in a national newspaper. 

John Humphrys, a presenter of the Today programme, which is interrupted by transmission of the three minute Thought for Day slot, stated it was ‘frankly bizarre’ to interrupt the BBC’s news programme with ‘what is in essence a sermon’.

Mr Humphrys, in an article in the Times, has previously expressed his view that non-religious contributors should be allowed to participate in the programme, which explicitly excludes individuals without a religious belief. 

A recent editorial in the Guardian newspaper questioned the timing of the slot, believing Thought for the Day’s positioning within one of the BBC’s premier news and current affairs programmes as inappropriate and out of context. 

Read more.

Criticism ISN'T Persecution . . .

 . . . and neither is sarcasm, being disbelieved or laughed at. Good video. The BBC Radio 4 programme he is referring to was "The World tonight" on 26th August. 

Interfaith Week

Some potent thoughts for Interfaith Week from Dinah commenting on Platitude of the Day for 16th November 2009; "Reverend Canon Doctor Alan Billings":


"To achieve religious toleration there have to be neutral spaces in society such as schools, workplaces, political assemblies and public services where people regardless of their beliefs or non-beliefs can meet on an equal footing: places indeed where religious faith ought to be irrelevant. By continually pushing a religious agenda into such spaces, the government risks fatally undermining this neutrality, and increasing intolerance, because whatever Karen Armstrong thinks, most religions are at heart incompatible.

Billings’s job is to sell Christianity as the one true faith where the only path to salvation is through Jesus Christ. This would be regarded as blasphemy by a Muslim. They can’t both be right (though they could of course both be wrong). Given this, tolerance can only go so far, and can only work when religion is separated from the state and for the most part confined to private spaces.

If Billings and his ilk were serious about promoting religious toleration, they would be avidly promoting secularism, not continually griping about it undermining religion and chipping away at its foundations.

Thanks to the mainly abysmal teaching of history in the UK today few people today learn about the religious intolerance in our past, which makes them easy meat for religious propagandists. By all means have RE in schools, but make it mandatory to include real religion, its history and its dark side with examples from all faiths."

TftD Appeal - update

I have heard from the BBC Trust that the findings of their Appeals Panels which sat on November 5th are going through their processes and are expected to be published shortly.
                                                                                                            
They have asked for a contact phone number so I presume I shall hear before the press.

It would be interesting to know how many appeals on this subject they were hearing.

Rethinking Thought for the Day

As reported earlier on this blog the BBC Trust's decision on the future format of "Thought for the Day" is expected on November 5th. In this article the Telegraph reviews recent debates and comments.

Secularists seem to have unearthed a new weapon to wield in the ongoing argument with the BBC and religious lobbyists. The Corporation could be in breach of equality laws if it refuses to make the slot more inclusive. Lawyers have been asked by senior management at the BBC to investigate the claim so that they can advise the trust on whether they would be at risk of facing the fight going to court.

I am sure that secularists feel they are nearing a crucial period in a long-running struggle against what they see as unwarranted bias. They will want to take the struggle as far as they can.

'Thought for the Day' Appeal

A bulging ring-binder arrived by special delivery from the BBC Trust today together with a letter confirming that my (and others') appeal about lack of balance in' Thought for the Day' will be heard on 5th November by both the Editorial Standard's Committee and the General Appeals Panel.

The binder contains all the paperwork that will be provided to these two committees and, as one of the appellants, I am invited to comment on the factual accuracy and completeness of the material. Judging by its weight they intend this to be a very thorough job. I feel we are approaching a watershed moment in this long-running dispute.

At this stage the paperwork is confidential but my final letter, which is included, has already been published here.

TftD Appeal to the BBC Trust. Episode 4

Just to let you know this is still chugging along quite nicely. In my last post I reported that the BBC Trust Unit had decided that the question of lack of impartiality in TftD was a matter for the General Appeals Panel rather that the Editorial Standards Committee. This seemed quite a strange decision and one of the appellants had the happy notion to appeal against it. As a result both the Editorial Standards Committee and the General Appeals Panel will now be sitting on the same day to determine the appeals from different points of view.

Before that happens the BBC Trust will invite the BBC Executive to provide a statement on the issues of impartiality and how it seeks to meet the Public Purpose remit across particular programmes, series or services. The BBC Trust will then prepare a briefing paper which it will circulate to the appellants for final comment before the appeals are heard.

We are already familiar with the BBC Executive's defence of TftD from Mark Damazer's various communications. Unless they can pull some new rabbits out of the hat the situation is, I think, beginning to look quite promising.

BBC "Thought for the Day" Appeal

I have received a reply to my Appeal to the BBC Trust from the Secretary to the Editorial Standards Committee. He states:-

"We believe it appropriate for the ESC to make a decision as to whether to hear your complaint on appeal due to the arguments you have raised. We will therefore place all of your correspondence with the BBC, as well as your appeal letter to the ESC in front of the Committee at their next meeting on  1 July 2009."

So far so good. I presume this means I've sprung some new argument on them that they need to consider.  Watch this space.  . . .

TftD Complaint - Appeal to BBC Trust

BBC Trust,

35 Marylebone High Street, 

London 

W1U 4AA.

 3rd May 2009

Dear Sirs

“Thought for the Day”

I am writing to ask you hear on appeal my complaint about the programming of “Thought for the Day” (TftD); in particular the omission of the humanist or atheist voice from among its presenters.

I first complained to the BBC about the TftD slot by email on 1st January 09. I received a response from Mark Damazer (MD) on 8th January and I responded to this on the 9th January. I received a further reply from MD on 25th January in which he was unable to add anything  to his first and advised me to refer the matter to the BBC Trust. (I have since learnt that this was in fact the wrong advice.)

I wrote to the BBC Trust on 9th February and they referred my letter to Tim Davie (TD), Director of Audio and Music for a further response which I have now received. This is dated 21st April 09.  

Neither MD or TD have addressed my specific reasons for considering the views expressed in TftD lacking in balance. They  seem content to rely on mere assertion to the contrary.

Also I am surprised that I have had no response from the Religion & Ethics Department who produce TftD  and would seem to be in a unique position to throw some light on the matter. The web page of the Religion & Ethics Department provides a list of "featured religions & beliefs". This list is headed (alphabetically) with "Atheism" with a sub-category “humanism”. The R & E Department is evidently quite content to feature atheism elsewhere in its schedules but, in a strange lapse of impartiality, seems unable to include  a humanist speaker in the TftD slot.

However to return to the responses I have received, I understand from Mr Damazer that: TftD aims to offer a brief, uninterrupted interlude of spiritual reflection in the midst of the three hour Today programme; that the speakers are chosen from those religions having a “significant” membership in the UK; and that a “careful balance” is maintained between these different religions.

To anyone who considers humanism as valid as any religious creed this “careful balance” is self-evidently absent.   But even among the religions presently  represented in TftD I do not see evidence for this “careful balance”. Surely my complaint calls for the “balance” to  be quantified in some way. For example, in very round terms what is the threshold for a religion to be considered significant and how many TftD slots per annum would that give entitlement to? 

According to Tim Davie speakers are expected to make brief references to their faith & its scriptures but are not allowed to proselytise or to disparage other religions. 

The monologues are in fact very variable in quality. Some, by expressing humane and readily endorsed views can stand alone without reference to religion, which reference is sometimes brought in  like an afterthought.  The worst monologues are platitudinous or strain to answer moral or ethical questions in way that fits religious dogma. Yet the humanist viewpoint is never represented because, in the words of Mr Damazer, it would “detract from the distinctiveness of the slot”. It is impossible to see how this would be so. As religious proselytisation is not allowed the distinctiveness of TftD overwhelmingly  relies on its scheduling, brevity, and  meditative nature. Again Mr Damazer has not made any attempt to justify his assertion.

Even if the occasional humanist presenter would in a small way alter the character of the slot it is surely an insufficient reason for exclusion. According to the 2001 census 20% of the UK population stated that they had no religion or left the question blank. Many of these will switch off their minds if not their radios during TftD. Is it really the BBC’s position that this 20% have no interest in spiritual reflection or that only religious believers are fit to cater for it?

Both MD and TD give examples of other programmes in which religious & non religious voices are balanced such as Sunday, Beyond Belief, and The Moral Maze on Radio 4, Good Morning Sunday and World of Faith on Radio 2. 

I do not understand the relevance of this to TftD. In the examples given it is possible to provide balanced views within the scope of a single programme and, as far as I know the BBC generally succeeds in this. In the case of a 5 minute slot this is obviously not feasible but balance can still be demonstrated over a run of programmes  by regular inclusion of the humanist voice. 

Lastly, in support of their case, MD and TD both make reference to the non-religious voices that “are also heard extensively across the general output in news, current affairs, documentaries, talks, science, history”. 

Again this seems irrelevant to TftD.  MD has stressed the unique nature of TftD. This uniqueness sets it apart from the general run of programming, and its present lack of any humanist input cannot be notionally rectified by random non-religious voices elsewhere in the general programme output.

Yours faithfully

BBC "Thought for the Day" Complaint.

Evidently my earlier hopes that change might be on the way were not justified as far as "Thought for the Day" is concerned. I have now had a reply from Tim Davie, Director of Audio & Music. This response represents the second stage in the BBC Complaints procedure and leaves the door open to  an appeal to the BBC Trust. 

In the following analysis, quotes from Mr Davie's letter are italicised:-

Mark Damazer was expressing the views of the BBC in his letter, and I stand by those views.

This is puzzling. I complain to the BBC about a specific aspect of its editorial policy and  get  replies from employees who merely state they support the policy. Could they be expected to do anything else? It  poses the question of who creates the policy and why the complaint was not referred to them for consideration?

"contributors to Thought for the Day are chosen to balance voices from different Christian denominations and other religions with significant membership in the UK. "

Yes, we do know this. What relevance does this statement have to the essence of a complaint about  the omission of  the humanist viewpoint from TftD broadcasts.

"Speakers are expected to make brief references to their faith and its scriptures, but are not permitted to proselytise on behalf of their religion or disparage other religions."

Again this seems hardly relevant unless Mr Davie is suggesting that the  inclusion of the humanist viewpoint would, by its very nature, be  potent enough  to amount to proselytisation and disparagement of other religions .

"While debates like these are often finely balanced, I don't believe that carrying Thought for the Day in the Today programme contravenes the BBC's editorial guidelines on bias and impatiality."

Like Mark Damazer, Mr Davie does not produce any detailed reasoning as to how the TftD programming meets the BBC's own guidelines on balance but merely asserts that it does so. 

He then goes on list  the BBC's other religious output in which "atheists,  humanists and secularists are regularly heard, and religious leaders are questioned and challenged." Again this may be so but we are complaining about the privilege accorded  the religious outlook in  the Today programme. 

"And of course non-religious voices are also heard extensively across the general output . .". 

Well the situation could hardly be otherwise. This statement is almost fatuous.

Progress on my TftD Complaint

The answer is there has been no progress. The BBC Trust passed my complaint to the Director of Audio & Music for the 2nd stage of the complaints procedure. The Director simply  passed it to Mark Damazer who has now sent me exactly the same reply that he sent before. I.e. we are going round in circles! But maybe not quite. It implies that MD is the only person in the organisation competent to answer this particular complaint. I am surely entitled to assume that this completes the 2nd stage and go on to the 3rd stage by appealing to the BBC Trust. 

Watch this space.