Memorandum by the National Secular Society
O. CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
[References to other parts of this Submission
are in parentheses.]
A. Do different faiths (including no faith
beliefs) figure sufficiently in BBC programmes and services?
We conclude that:
1. on radio there is more than sufficient
(indeed, we consider, excessive) programming allocated to religious
groups, given the proportion of active religious adherents in
the population, which is quite low. (Appendix B)
2. on television the existing programmes
are too often of "dumbed down" and are lacking in scepticism
in the objective sense of that word; (2.1.08, 2.1.09)
3. on both radio and television religious
groups are privileged and receive too much deference even during
"secular" programmes such as Today; (2.2.5, 2.2.6)
4. on both radio and television the non-faith
or secular humanist viewpoint is ignored, misunderstood, neglected
or misrepresented in a negative way; (2.1 as a whole) particularly
given they form a significant proportion of the population -at
least three times as much as the total adherents of minority faiths. (Appendix
B)
5. Nearly all programmes about religious
beliefs or lifestances are allocated to a theist perspective while
practically none are allocated to a non-theist viewpoint, and
of the few that are they treat a non-theist perspective as almost
pathological, requiring some better qualified, inevitably religious,
person to speak for them or explain their behaviour. (2.3.2)
B. How should faiths (including no faith beliefs)
be represented in BBC programmes, services and governance?
We accept that:
1. programmes that are religious rituals/services
have a place in BBC schedules since worshippers are also licence
payers;
2. there is a need for informative and educational
programmes about religions; (2.1.13)
but we recommend that:
1. programming that tends towards proselytising
should be removed from the schedules, except a bare minimum of
broadcasting time being devoted to worship until digital channels
become available to make it practical for the existing public
service broadcasting requirements for religious programmes to
be cancelled; (1.1)
2. given the continuing increase in the number
of people with no religious belief, the number of religious programmes
especially on Radio 4 should be reduced; (app. B)
3. programmes dealing with the role of different
faiths in the community and the world should be made without deference
or excessive sensitivity, should be objective and not automatically
exclude non-theist views; (1.4)
4. similar programmes[23]
should be made showing how humanists live their lives without
religion, or how non-theists approach moral problems of our time
without invoking the divine;
5. the BBC should commission programmes for
the general viewer and broadcast on mainstream channels at popular
times (rather than be relegated to BBC4) that dispassionately
examine the history and claims of religions even though it may
cause discomfiture to some faith groups;
C. What more can the BBC do the better to
involve the public in its decision-making?
We recommend that:
— The equality of religion and other
belief systems has been accepted by the government in several
strands of legislation, and the population as a whole is little
influenced by religious leaders or concepts. Rather than pay lip-service
to the foregoing, the BBC should accept this wholeheartedly and
reflect this balance in the way they treat the non-religious and
make programmes. (2.2 as a whole)
— The special interest lobby group
known as the Central Religious Advisory Committee should be abolished,
or at the very least, reorganised to take account of non-theist
viewpoints in a way that broadly reflects the proportion of the
population. (2.2.1)
— The BBC reviews (again) the way in
which it deals with complaints. (2.3)
— That we should no longer keep referring
clumsily to "belief and non-belief" when discussing
these matters, which simply underlines the differences, but use
the more egalitarian Weltanschauung.
D. The brief—two concerns relating to
the consultation itself
1. We note that the question asks "Do
different faiths (including no faith beliefs) figure sufficiently
. . .". We are disturbed that the question itself seems to
be biased in that it does not seek to find out whether anyone
considers different faiths (including no faith beliefs) to figure
excessively.
2. We note in passing that we find the description
"no faith beliefs" to be less than appropriate. Most
if not all of those without religious beliefs—particularly
Atheists—would not consider that their position was a belief
of any description.
1. The purpose of religious broadcasting
1.0 Recently the BBC has been approached
by the churches for more time to be allocated to "religious
broadcasting". On the face of it, not an unreasonable request,
until one asks the question, "What is the purpose of religious
broadcasting?" Is it one or more of the following:
(a) to bring the word of God to a wider audience;
(b) to boost the commitment and understanding
of the faithful;
(c) to bring the church to the housebound;
(d) to comment on current events and social
attitudes from a religious perspective;
(e) to educate the public in the beliefs,
traditions and history of world religions ;
(f) to subject the history and beliefs of
the religion to a professionally competent and objective examination
for the education of the public, particularly including the faithful.
1.1 Bearing in mind that the BBC is publicly
funded, then from a secular (see 2.01 below and ) viewpoint purposes
(a) and (b) are entirely inappropriate, since it is not legitimate
for the state or its institutions to promote a religion, since
this would lend legitimacy to one set of beliefs rather than another,
beliefs which are only a matter of opinion with no basis in fact.
The state and its institutions' obligation under Human Rights
legislation to guarantee freedom of worship does not extend to
require the financing of or other support for the churches. Existing
BBC guidelines already warn against open proselytising. In any
case, given the number of sects and denominations, each convinced
of its own supremacy and certainties, the entire output of the
BBC would probably not be enough to accommodate all of them to
their satisfaction. And, having agreed to include some religions,
it is not clear on what democratic basis other more extreme religions,
sects or cults are to be excluded. If there were no religious
broadcasts on the BBC, such questions would not arise.
1.2 Some measure of the deliberate and entirely
incorrect overstatement of the importance religion is contained
in the Governors' report of a seminar the BBC instituted Taking
Belief Seriously which took place on 13 May 2005, but to which
no secular or humanist group was invited to send a representative,
despite a request by at least one to do so. The Report, a Summary
of The BBC Governors' Seminar On Religion[24]
contained the following, we consider to be partial, passages:
"4 IN 5 PEOPLE IN THE UK AND WORLDWIDE CLAIM
A RELIGIOUS IDENTITY
"Only 1.1 billion of the world's 6 billion
inhabitants describe themselves as non-believers. And a surprising
77 per cent of people in the 2001 UK census identified themselves
with a faith-group (23 per cent didn't answer or said they had
no religion).
"So though active involvement in religion
is still declining in Britain, a strong sense of religious identity
persists.
(our emphasis) "And levels of participation
mustn't be underestimated . . . "
This seems to overlook the fact that, according
to a Home Office Survey church attendance has been in decline
in each of the last six decades, and according to a Home Office
survey[25]
religion is only regarded as ninth in importance to self identity,
although the ranking is higher among those from minority ethnic
backgrounds. It is curious that, having embarked on such an exercise,
neither the Governors or their staff were aware of these facts,
because had they been so they would have presumably alluded to
them in the interests of balance.
1.3 As for (c)—services for housebound
worshippers, we do not object to this kind of programme until
alternative digital or satellite services become widely available
at a reasonable cost, but this is probably just a few years away.
Under d)—comment on current affairs—we should expect
any such programmes to include a salutary and substantial contribution
from freethinkers as well as from faith groups.
1.4 Purpose (e)—educating the audience
about different faiths—is entirely legitimate as long as
the presentation is objective and cultural rather than confessional.
Programmes where this is being done in excessive detail or at
great length and/or being frequently repeated will suggest they
should be categorised under (a) or (b) as proselytising. In the
case of (f)—objective examination of a faith—we doubt
that any programme, on TV or radio, that subjected a religion
to close scrutiny would go without challenge or even riots. The
very few programmes that have done no more than dip toes in this
water caused consternation in some quarters. Yet this purpose
is entirely legitimate, too.
1.5 If the above is accepted, then the type
of programme that would be broadcast under secular rules need
not be assigned the special category of "religious"
at all, but be part of the mainstream documentary and current
affairs. A temporary exception, pending technological developments,
would be programmes for housebound worshippers.
2. Justification of our conclusions
2.0 Introduction—misconceptions in
the BBC that religious observance is the norm in our society
Whether it is Remembrance Day or commemoration
of a great disaster, the public event, attended by the great and
the good on behalf of all of us, almost invariably takes the form
of a Christian service, thus automatically excluding non-Christians
and unbelievers. A recent example was the funeral of Robin Cook,
which took place in St Giles' Cathedral. Despite the fact he was
an atheist, the Today programme called it "defiantly secular".
2.1 Some typical programmes: how the BBC
neglects or misrepresents the non-theist viewpoint
First, radio—mostly R4.
2.1.01 Melvin Bragg's In our time, a
discussion programme involving three experts (usually) about ideas
in history which are important today, does not seem to be aware
of such freethinkers as Voltaire, Diderot or Bradlaugh. Discussions
of Enlightenment figures are confined to scientists and their
scientific achievements, or in the case of Newton, attention may
be drawn to his deep religiosity. A letter from one of our members
to the producer commenting on this fact and suggesting the inclusion
of big names in freethought was ignored. Indeed, when the discussion
tends towards being critical of religion, obviously moving away
from Bragg's script, he can almost be heard squirming as he steers
the discussion towards safer ground.
2.1.02 Programmes such as Beyond Belief,
which examines religious belief today, sometimes include a Humanist
or atheist, but the presenter is an ordained minister and the
token freethinker is never allowed a free run at the subject.[26]
The former head of religious broadcasting Rev. Ernest Rhea presented
an edition of the programme on 29 August 2005 in which the BBC
website billed, somewhat tendentiously, we feel, as follows:
"Beyond Belief this week
steps into the secular world when Ernie Rea explores the nature
of non-belief and uncovers the aims and intentions of those who
clamour for a society without religion. Non-believers see their
tolerance as the only possible way of managing a community which
is troubled by religious fundamentalism. But can't those very
secular beliefs themselves be the source of dispute and disagreement?
And how do believers exercise their rights if their faith has
been relegated to the private sphere?"
2.1.03 During the programme the word
"secularist" was misused by the two believers several
times as a synonym for "atheist" or "irreligious",
despite the fact that the two secularists (one identified as an
atheist, the other undetermined) were at pains to define secularism
(as defined above 2.01 and see glossary) more than once. Furthermore,
Rhea as chairman of the discussion showed none of the impartiality
expected of such a position, and was shamelessly partisan. He,
and others of similar outlook, would do well to follow the advice
from the BBC seminar Taking Religion Seriously (May 2005), which
recommended (our emphasis):
All broadcasters should try to
be precise in their use of religious language. Words like "fundamentalism",
"conservatism", "secular" and "evangelical"
need expert handling. Particular risks surround phrases (like
"Islamic terrorist") linking religion with violent action.
As impartial broadcasters the BBC should continue to be aware
that language is often used as a weapon in religious conflicts.
2.1.04 The highly contentious Thought
for the Day slot in the Today programme is restricted
to speakers who are believers. If it is thought sensible to devote
two or three minutes to a spiritual (whatever that means) contemplation
of an event in the news, then this should not be the opportunity
for proselytising or religio-political soap-boxing, as it sometimes
is. For example, Rev. X was blatantly political in July 2004 when
he demanded "explicitly Christian" legislation on prostitution.
Furthermore, the contributors sometimes deliver themselves of
opinions which we suspect most of the population would regard
as smug or deluded, such as Ms Y on the tsunami disaster last
December, or Rev. Z on the devastation caused by hurricane Katrina
(names provided on request) . While these opinions may be crass
or ill-prepared, the BBC is careful to ensure that the speakers
do not come from the full range of religious opinion, some of
which may be too shocking. Why there should be an objection to
a freethinker speaker is not at all clear, when—albeit very
occasionally—the speaker makes no mention of God or religion
and gives a view of which no freethinker would disapprove. The
TftD of 3 August 2005 by Dr. Jeevan Singh Deol is an example.
When we tell members of the general public that this ban still
remains, most are astonished and the continuance of the ban—despite
so much protest—reinforces our contention that non-believers
are the last group, after homosexuals, who it is acceptable for
public bodies to discriminate against, in a way that would be
unthinkable for minority religious groups.
2.1.05 BBC Radio4's Sunday programme
is broadcast every Sunday morning between 0710 and 0755, devoted
to religious news of all kinds and other news on which religious
opinions are expressed. Often the topics cry out for a secular
viewpoint or a contrasting view to the religious one which is
expressed, and indeed up to around three years ago secular or
humanist perspectives were heard with reasonable regularity, even
if only in letters that used to be read out. Now, revealingly,
there are no letters and non-religious dissention is only very
occasionally, broadcast, and even then mostly in a tokenistic
way.
2.1.06 The Radio 4 programme The
Westminster Hour—The Sunday Supplement on 2 January
2005 featured material which amounted to an attack on secularism;
the programme allowed no access to secularists and misrepresented
our viewpoint. Although this was an opinion piece, it was so biased
that Dr Evan Harris MP was moved to make an official complaint.
2.1.07 It is also noteworthy that Radio
3 finds it necessary to follow the church calendar throughout
the year. Most atheist music lovers will freely admit that much
great music has been composed for church use, and do not object
to its presence on R3, but there are days in the year when R3
is wall-to-wall religious music and musical worship.
2.1.08 Those of our members who have
sampled BBC1's The Heaven and Earth Show on occasion have
not been impressed. The treatment of the topic is shallow, with
too many people asking questions which there is not enough time
to answer in any sensible way. In one programme watched by a member
the token Humanist was allowed to say two sentences, more or less,
while other contributors made longer statements of dubious validity.
At the time of writing the programme is billed to have a studio
audience asking a vicar and a sitcom star questions about the
paranormal.
2.1.09 Last year the BBC made a TV programme
about the state of religious belief in this country, which from
previous experience we expected would be fragmentary, shallow
and uninformative. It was worse than expected, since one of the
speakers, Dr Jonathan Miller, stormed out of the studio in protest
at the moronic level of the programme. Later, Dr Miller was seen
on BBC4—n.b. not BBBC 1 or BBC2—presenting a series
on the history of atheism, which contained little in the way of
commentary on religious doctrine, let alone close examination.
This sop to Cerberus has yet to be seen on either of the BBC's
main channels, an example of the quarantining atheists, who seem
to be regarded by the BBC as people apart, to the BBC's least
watched channel, and at a late hour, is demonstrably blatant discrimination.
2.1.10 News reporting especially is
supposed to be impartial, so it was unpleasant for one of our
members to hear a report from News 24 on Christmas Day about Christian
missionaries here and in Africa during which the commentator spoke
about the "disease" of secularism, which was a "threat".
2.1.11 Another of our members noticed
this example (his words quoted) aimed at children, and it is not
the only one:
This afternoon (24 October 2001,
BBC1, 17:00) there was a disturbing example of religious proselytising
on the BBC children's programme Blue Peter. The show was
a special on the subject of ancient Rome and included an account
of a story where St Peter met Jesus on the highway who persuaded
him to return to the city to be crucified. The presenter told
this story as though it were historically true, whilst we were
shown film of an actor portraying a Christ-like figure appearing
in the haze. No attempt was made to separate this from other parts
of the programme which presented real historical facts about the
Romans. I find it particularly disturbing that religious mythology
is being presented this way in a programme aimed at children.
2.1.12 The BBC seminar on Taking religion
seriously (May 2005) opined that:
There may be wariness in British
television about commissioning and scheduling dramas which are
overtly religious, and contain characters who have religious motives.
This contrasts with a much more accepting attitude to strong political
beliefs.
and suggested making dramas with
more overtly religious themes. The BBC is even more wary about
making dramas with overtly atheist or humanist themes. A small
but significant pointer is the nature of the funeral when a character
dies: although humanist funerals are becoming more and more popular,
the scene is automatically a Christian service, usually including
the bizarre phrase "in sure and certain hope of the resurrection".
2.1.13 The same seminar concluded
Basic knowledge of religion is
very poor in Britain.[27]
With the expertise of its Religion and Ethics department, the
BBC can help to provide much-needed basic education about the
nature and history of religion.
but made no mention of objectivity.
2.2 Other examples of the BBC's bias towards
religion:
2.2.1 The BBC website has a page devoted
to the Central Religious Advisory Council, which is an independent
body advising the BBC on matters pertaining to religion. The list
of its members does not include their religious affiliations,
except through such titles as bishop or rabbi. There is in fact
no secular or humanist representative on this body, although the
government in several strands of legislation has established the
equality of belief and non-belief.
2.2.2 In May this year (2005) the BBC
Governors held a meeting about religious broadcasting, the purpose
of which was apparently "to find new ways to engage the audience
with religion". It is surely not in the remit of the BBC
to help faith groups with their proselytising.[28]
It does not, it seems, occur to the BBC that since the BBC's audience
is clearly not interested, they should, as in any other field,
make fewer programmes not more. See also Appendix B on this point.
2.2.3 In the listing of the panel assembled
to discuss "Taking belief seriously" there is no mention
of the religious affiliation of the members, except where it may
be inferred from titles such as bishop. It appears that no member
of the panel was, for example, a humanist or freethinker. We should
not expect, for example, the following conclusion being admitted
to the report on the seminar without protest from a humanist:
1e RELIGION: MORE A MORAL AESTHETIC
THAN A SYSTEM OF BELIEF?
It may help to think of religion
as an art-form which helps us to avoid despair and see the world
in a spirit of wonder and awe. From this perspective the language
of "myth" is not the same as "untruth".
Nor is religion necessarily about
the supernatural. Most religious experience is less about believing
in a creed than behaving in ways that change and transform, and
help us see the sacred in other people.
2.2.4 In an age when "old-time
religion" has lost much of its hold, it seems that with ideas
such as the above the BBC is willing to join with the churches
in annexing ordinary decent human impulses and the emotions generated
by good art and the natural world.
2.2.5 A Religion and Ethics newsletter
this year listed a variety of religious festivals, Christian,
and non-Christian, with URLs for explanatory web pages. It seems
that the BBC sees itself more and more as an agency for promoting
religious bodies.
2.2.6 A BBC report looking at impartiality
in representing religions (Impartiality Review July 2004)
mentioned atheists once in a statistics section and humanists
once in a quote from an evangelical. While it may be argued that
the report was about religion, that misses the point—why
isn't the BBC considering its partiality/impartiality across the
whole range of belief systems? In other words, Weltanschauung,[29]
rather than belief, non-belief, faith, atheism etc.
2.3 The BBC's handling of complaints about religious
programmes
2.3.1 Complaints about misrepresentation
of the secular viewpoint are ignored or fobbed off with a form
letter, or if there is a reply, it frequently misrepresents the
nature of the complaint. We are told that since most of the output
of Radio 4, for example, is "secular", we have no reason
to complain (see 2.3.4 below). This interpretation of the word
"secular" in this context is, of course, disingenuous
and self-serving.
2.3.2 Sometimes the BBC reminds us of
The Moral Maze,[30]
a discussion programme in which four panellists interview "witnesses"
on the topic of the day. Two of the panellists are usually freethinkers
or atheists. Leaving aside the main problem of this programme,
the fact that at least two panellists usually have entrenched
black and white views and never change their opinions as a result
of the discussion, This is just one programme to set against many
others where the faith position goes unchallenged. When one of
our members wrote to the Religion and Ethics department asking
them to name one single programme in which humanists, freethinkers
and atheists could put forward their points of view in like manner
uninterrupted, he received no reply—for there is no such
programme. Even less likely on present form is the prospect of
programmes made by freethinkers themselves.[31]
2.3.3 Another case in point is the reception
given to complaints about the restriction of Thought for the
Day to believers. The obdurate refusal of the BBC last year
to give proper consideration to the complaints of secularists
on this matter should be a cause for shame, particularly since
the BBC misrepresented the steps it had taken in dealing with
the complaint.[32]
Alan Bookbinder, the Head of Religion and Ethics, and reportedly
an agnostic, had earlier—it seems—expressed the attitude
of the BBC management when he wrote in a letter to Daily Telegraph,
23 July 2003 (our emphasis—and a further example of an attitude
which would be unthinkable if directed by employees of a publicly
funded corporation towards any other minority as our previous
objections have to it have resulted in neither apology nor retraction):
Contributors are not dropped from
Thought for the Day for being "too religious",
but for failing to meet the slot's exacting standards. And our
recent success fighting off the atheist lobby demonstrates that
it is still very much a religious slot.
2.3.4 An example of the way in which
the BBC simply does not understand (wilfully?) complaints from
secularists is the answer from a Religion and Ethics producer
in reply to a complaint the Pause for Thought (R2) contained
only religious viewpoints (our emphasis):
"The answer to your query
is that because Pause For Thought and Thought For The
Day are part of the BBC's religious output, it would not be
appropriate to give a platform in these slots to anti-religious
views. There are, of course, plenty of opportunities for the secular
perspective to be expressed across the BBC's non-religious output."
This output includes, we contend,
a substantial and increasing proportion of religious proselytisation,
(which we consider to be verging on subversive). What is not mentioned
in the above answer is that such uncontested slots are used to
voice anti-secular views.
Of course, humanists and atheists allowed
access to these slots would not put forward anti-religious views,
and that is not what was being requested. The DG himself is content
to replicate similar excuses (21 September 2004):
The non-religious approach to
life has been regularly featured on Belief on Radio 3,
The Heaven and Earth Show on BBC One, and Sunday,
Beyond Belief and The Moral Maze on Radio 4.
—without, of course acknowledging
that the freethinkers in these programmes are all carefully corralled
by believers. It is worth repeating that there are no programmes
on the BBC (radio and main TV channels) which humanists and atheists
have entirely to themselves: this is not the case for the religious.
2.3.5 Many of the BBC's staff also acknowledge
that the Corporation favours religion excessively. Evidence of
this is shown in Appendix A.
10 October 2005
23 presented by secularists and humanists, so that
they can make their own case, instead of having their philosophy
filtered through someone who either doesn't understand it or wants
to deliberately misrepresent it. Back
24
http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/reviews/taking-belief-seriously.html
1B Back
25
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hors274.pdf Back
26
In discussion programmes of this type or magazine programmes
such as Sunday, it is surprising how little is said in a five-minute
interview, as those of us who have typed transcripts of them are
very much aware. Back
27
Not least among the BBC's own staff! Back
28
It seems, according to the DG, that "The seminar was never
intended to encourage or assist the BBC in "proselytising
for religions"", but governors turning up to the meeting
with that phrase in their heads would find it difficult to engage
with non-belief. Back
29
Approximately "world outlook"; no English equivalent,
as in the case of Schadenfreude, another German word in common
use Back
30
Invented by Rev. Ernest Rhea, then Head of Religious Broadcasting. Back
31
The exception, Dr Jonathan Miller's series of programmes, noted
elsewhere. Back
32
In a letter date 17 August 2004 to the DG, we wrote "The
high profile (100+ signatories reading like an extract from Who's
Who) formal complaint was rejected on air the morning after it
was sent, before it could possibly have been considered in an
impartial way. One of our Honorary Associates, Polly Toynbee,
was later misled by a senior executive at BH claiming that the
Governors had seen and rejected our complaint. She was so affronted
by the episode, she wrote about it in the Guardian." Back
|
