They’re religious, so they can say what they like


After listening to Rt Rev James Jones’ reading of December 23rd 2008, I complained to the BBC thusly:

During Thought for the Day, the reader, Rt Rev James Jones, exploited the emotional gravity of a child’s death to propagandise on a political agenda.

I thought this was a distasteful abuse of the reader’s responsibility to offer “a unique reflection from a faith perspective” and “a spiritual insight rooted in the theology of their own tradition”, which is the description of Thought for the Day found on your website.

The Bishop did not root his reading in his faith’s theology, nor did he seem to offer any kind of spiritual insight. It was an intentionally emotive promotional broadcast for the political purposes of his organisation.

Please can you inform me whether or not you agree, and whether or not the reading complies with the programming policy or policies Thought for the Day broadcasts are required to comply with.

And this is the response I’ve received just now:

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the BBC Radio 4 programme ‘Thought for the Day’ as broadcast on 23 December 2008.

Please accept our apologies for the long delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have had to wait on this occasion.

I understand you were unhappy about the contribution given on this particular slot by the Rt Rev James Jones Bishop of Liverpool. I recognise you feel the Bishop did not keep within the spiritual remit of the programme and I note you feel his views were overtly political on this occasion.

If I can take some time to address your concerns, as you have mentioned the remit of ‘Thought for the Day’ is to provide a sprirtual insight on current events, included in this remit is the inclusion of regular contributors who represent a wide range of theological, social and political views to ensure further balance across a period of time.

In addition to this I can assure you that the choice of subject and content of the programme’s contributor’s scripts are subject to careful scrutiny and frequent re-drafting in collaboration with an experienced producer working to strict BBC guidelines on impartiality.

With this in mind I must stress that the views and opinions that are portrayed in this slot are not supported or endorsed by the BBC.

I acknowledge you may continue to hold differing views regarding this matter however I can assure you that I’ve registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.

Regards

Liam Boyle
BBC Complaints

I think the most interesting part of this is where he states that:

“included in this remit is the inclusion of regular contributors who represent a wide range of theological, social and political views”

The response says to me that, as long as you’re religious, you can use Thought for the Day to express any social or political opinions you may hold, whether you root them in your religious beliefs or not.

The BBC’s “careful scrutiny” deemed Jones’ reading fit to broadcast, and Liam Boyle’s response confirms that the BBC do not consider that an error in judgement.

So I’m now to understand the BBC’s official stance as being that Thought for the Day readers are allowed uninterrupted daily airtime on one of the public broadcaster’s most listened to radio programmes to say anything they want on any topic they choose. Why? Because they’re religious.

That, as they say, is whack.

  • Indeed, I think the balance they're talking about is that which maintains the status quo.

    And I don't mind you plugging your pledge at all. i shall put my name to it and I'll post an entry to let my visitors know too. Great idea.
  • George
    I wonder if they'll perhaps provide "balance across a period of time" by having Rabbi Lionel Blue put the case for disestablishment of the Church of England?

    Nah...

    George
    PS Would you mind if I plugged my pledge? http://www.pledgebank.org/secularTFTD
  • Indeed. I think I've worded that badly at the end there. Not only are they allowed to say whatever they like because they're religious, they apparently don't even have to relate what they say to their religious beliefs.

    The BBC want to have their cake eat it. They invite religious people on Today to say whatever they like about whatever they like, because they provide a 'unique faith perspective' by rooting their 'religious reflections' in their 'theological traditions'. We complain that that's absurd and ridiculous and it's all mumbo-jumbo and has no place on the air. We're ignored. So we try to compromise by pointing out that the non-religious have equally valid things to say about whatever they like, and they should expand the slot to include them too. The BBC respond by insisting on the 'distinctiveness of the slot' as providing a 'faith perspective'. And then when some Bishop or other makes a politically interested reading, failing to root his assertions in his religious beliefs, the BBC tell us that it's also the social and political opinions of their religious contributors that they value so much.

    So, put more simply, you can express social and political opinions not rooted in religion, but you've got to be religious to do it.

    Yes, I think I might just swear every day now from now on, as opposed to just every other day.
  • Pete
    What, you mean they can say whatever they like on TFTD? On any subject whatsoever? No challenge? No right to reply? Nothing? No matter how many people complain and how often? Outrageous!

    This is why I decided there was nothing left but to sit back mercilessly take the piss out of them.
blog comments powered by Disqus