£250 prize for a Secular TftD

The ongoing irritation at the BBC's exclusion of secular voices from The Thought for the Day slot has spurred one the previous presidents of the National Secular Society, David Tribe, to sponsor a prize of £250 for the best secular Thought for the Day.

Further details:-

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/02/win-gbp250--just-write-an-uplifting-secular-thought-for-the-day

Compose your own "Thought for the Day"

By Rupert Myers, Barrister, writer, & political obsessive.

Richard Dawkins' "Thought for the Day"

"When a terrible disaster happens - an air crash, a flood, or an earthquake - people thank God that it wasn’t worse. (But then why did he let the earthquake happen at all?) 

Or, even more childish and self-indulgent: “Thank you God for the traffic jam that made me miss that plane.” (But what about all the unfortunate people who didn’t miss the plane?) 

The same kind of infantile regression tempts us when we try to understand the natural world. 

“Poems are made by fools like me . . . But only God can make a tree.” 

A pretty song, but an infantile explanation. It’s too easy. Lazy. The moment we put a little effort into thinking about it, we realise that God the creator is no explanation at all. He constitutes a bigger question than he answers. 

Once, we couldn’t do any better. Humanity was still an infant. But now we understand what makes earthquakes; we understand what made trees. Not just trees like oaks and redwoods, with their underground root system like a huge, upside-down tree. 

The arteries that leave the heart branch and branch again like a tree. There are about 50 miles of blood vessels in a human body. 

Nerve cells, too, branch like trees. They are so numerous in the teeming forest of your brain that, if you stretched them end to end they would reach right round the world 25 times. 

In the face of such wonders, do you fall back, like a child, on God? “It’s so wonderful, so complicated, only God could have done it.” 

It’s tempting, isn’t it. But it’s not a real explanation. Not the kind of explanation that actually explains anything. And it’s nowhere near as poetic as the true explanation. 

Because the beauty is that humanity has grown up. We now know the true explanation. It’s gloriously simple once you get it, and more wonderful than our forefathers could ever have imagined. It makes use of yet another tree. The family tree of life. It began with something smaller than a bacterium, and it branched and branched to give all the species that have ever lived, whether extinct like the dinosaurs, or still hanging on like our own. Evolution really explains all of life, and it needs no supernatural intervention of any kind. 

The adult response is to rejoice in the amazing privilege we enjoy. We have been born, and we are going to die. But before we die we have time to understand why we were ever born in the first place. Time to understand the universe into which we have been born. And with that understanding, we finally grow up and realise that there is no help for us outside our own efforts. 

Humanity can leave the crybaby phase, and finally come of age. 

Now there’s a thought for more than just a day!"

Broadcast on 14 August 2002 but not in the TftD, 7.45am, slot. The BBC obviously feared creating an irresistible precedent.


"Thought for the Day" poll.

Britain now a majority non-religious nation

From the Guardian editorial for Friday 24th December 2010:-

"In the latest 2010 BSA report, published earlier this month, only 42% said they were Christians while 51% now say they have no religion. Admittedly, some other surveys – including the last census – have produced different findings on these issues, usually to the advantage of the religious option. There is also a margin of error in all such exercises. All the same, and particularly since the trends in opinion over time seem well set, it is hard not to feel that this latest finding marks a cultural watershed.

This Christmas, for perhaps the first time ever, Britain is a majority non-religious nation. Most of us have probably seen this moment coming, but it is a substantial event nonetheless. It is undoubtedly a development that would have astonished our ancestors who built a Britain on the basis that we were and would remain a predominantly Protestant people. The victory of secularism would have flabbergasted them almost as much as the pope appearing on the BBC with his Thought for the Day.

The change ought certainly to inspire some national reflection, though there is no need for national breast-beating. After all, in most eyes, the BSA survey finding simply underscores things that have already become obvious. Today, our three political parties are led by two open atheists, and a prime minister who admits his faith comes and goes, a development impossible to imagine in other parts of a world, in which the loss of religion is not a uniform trend. The Britain of 50 years ago, in which religion was a far larger part of the social fabric and the national way of life, is a country we have lost."

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.

BBC Complaints Update.

It is now over 2 months since I instigated an appeal to the BBC Trust over lack of balance in the "Thought for the Day" slot. I am still awaiting the second stage response from the Director of Audio & Music and have sent him the following reminder:-

Dear Mr Davie

Complaint against the “Thought for the Day” slot.

I understand from the BBC Trust that my letter of complaint to them of 9th Feb 2009 has been passed to you and that you had agreed to provide a second stage response.
I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of that letter and, perhaps, give some indication of when I might expect a reply.

I am also still awaiting a response to my email to the Religion & Ethics Department. This was on 8th March. See earlier posts.