As readers of a previous post will know, I’m not impressed with Nigel Holmes’ private member’s motion on the BBC. Of course, in the current climate, that motion is also a red rag to the humanist bull, more-or-less inviting it to rampage round the synodical china shop. And sure enough, Terry Secular of the National Sanderson Society can’t help himself from commenting.
He starts off with a serious misstatement by presenting a private member’s motion as “The Church of England is ramping up pressure on the BBC”. He goes on to paraphrase one of the thrusts of Holmes’ background briefing adding his own comment.
“the few programmes that do still make it onto screens” do not “celebrate” faith but see it as a problem. This seems to be saying that propaganda rather than the truth is what is being called for.
The idea of “celebrating” faith in Holmes’ paper is ambiguous, but comparisons are made to the celebration of the natural world or the enthusiasm of gardening programmes. One could read that as propaganda for science and horticulture, or one could read it as a reflecting on the way things are in the world and the way people enjoy and enthuse over things that matter to them. Note however, that for Sanderson, people enjoying the life of faith is “propaganda” and treating faith as a problem is “the truth”. Does he truly not see the size of his own presupposition here?
I noted elsewhere that I didn’t think a huge amount of Holmes’ use of statistics, but I don’t think much of Sanderson’s either. First of all, I don’t know where they’re coming from, since he fails to cite his source. He then claims that:
Religion dominates the BBCs radio channels – particularly Radio 4. According to the BBC’s Annual Report, Radio 4 committed to 200 hours of religious programming but in the end, unsurprisingly, delivered 223 hours.
I am not quite sure that either linguistically or mathematically 223 hours (out of 8736, or 2.5%) counts as “dominating” a channel.
There is, of course, another major problem shared by both Holmes’ proposal and Sanderson’s response. No-one is defining what a “religious” programme is. In my view this lack of clarity vitiates and confuses both the motion and the rebuttal. Just to take one example, was MacCulloch’s recent six part documentary on the History of Christianity a “religious” programme? It certainly gave coverage to a wide range of Christian practices and beliefs, good and bad, over a long span of history, and a wide geographical range. It equally certainly did not promote the purposes of the Christian Church. MacCulloch himself is not confessionally a Christian, but would probably describe himself as a cultural one. The programme was made both to serve the interests of a wider audience, and the needs of a secular university course.
There are other documentaries with a significant focus on faith and religion. An Island Parish regularly drew in audiences of around 2,000,000. Around the World in 80 Faiths drew, I believe, over 4,000,000. Those are very respectable viewing figures for documentary series – neither of which I watched, nor have any great enthusiasm for. The former is as much about a specific community for whim the church is a significant institution, the latter a mix of faith, anthropology, and the archetypal eccentric presenter. Yes, they can be classed as “religious” programming of some quality, but the term on its own doesn’t, as far as I can tell, do justice to what made people want to watch them.
As I said, I thought the whole motion was flawed. But this kind of knee-jerk and obfuscating response is as unhelpful as it was predictable.
{ 9 comments }
Mouse can’t help thinking that the Synod motion is really badly timed. Aaqil Ahmed is pretty new in role at the BBC, but seems to be improving things with a number of major programs featuring religion in the pipeline. It just seems that religious programming on the BBC is on an up-curve.
Mouse is also confused as to what this motion hopes to achieve. Synod should be more focused on the mission of the church.
I’m inclined to agree. I’m also trying hard to resist the temptation to wonder if as an ex-BBC man he may have a particular axe to grind.
If there wasn’t government ownership of broadcasting, we wouldn’t have to have these ridiculous arguments. Channels that wished to cater to the religious could do so, channels that wished to cater to those interested in religious topics could do so, and channels that wished to cater to those with no desire for religion could do so.
You’ll excuse me for saying so, I hope, but that sounds awfully like an American assuming their model is the only one that really works. The BBC is a world class trusted brand, which is something most other broadcasters can only aspire to. That’s why arguments about it are so important.
Mitchell Powell isn’t quite correct: there isn’t “government ownership of broadcasting” but an independent BBC funded effectively from ring-fenced taxation in the form of the license fee. But there are plenty of other broadcasters and plenty of religious TV and radio channels.
The BBC is rather unique and something that most people in this country (I guess) are proud of, despite its imperfections. It constantly has to balance conflicting demands on the balance of the broadcasting schedule. The problem that some members of the CofE establishment seem to have is that there has been a major shift in public commitment and attitude to their institution over recent decades. The BBC is, if anything, dragging its heals in following it.
I can see that’s hard to take if you’re accustomed to a priviliged position, especially if you’re an evangelical religion, which therefore places a high value on a free platform to “celebrate” (i.e. advertise). No-one enjoys feeling that they’re on the losing end of a trend. But change inevitably brings winners and losers. Maybe the General Synod should focus on how to respect and adapt to change rather than protest at the erosion of (still significant) privileges.
Why not a weekly programme “celebrating” humanism? (And I’ve not even mentioned the banning of non-religious thinkers from Thought for the Day….)
I think there are some questions I have about some of the points you make.
I’m not convinced that an ex-BBC producer and lay member of Synod is necessarily a member of the C of E establishment. Some Synod members are elected to be a “thorn in the side” of the C of E establishment.
I agree that there are some major shifts going in in both society and broadcasting. I think, however, that most media commentators would say that at the end of the noughties religion is a much bigger news and culture story than it was at the beginning of the decade. That is largely not C of E religion, or even Christian religion, although immigrant Catholicism and Pentecostalism is potentially as big a story as Islam.
I have no problem with celebrating humanism (though quite a few problems with the hi-jacking of the word humanism to exclude entirely theistic visions of human flourishing). On the other hand, I think there’s a fair bit of programming that celebrates human accomplishment, achievement and potential within a secular framework. I’m not quite sure exactly what you’re envisaging that would be different.
I’m sorry if it’s a mistake to equate being a member of the General Synod with belonging to the CofE establishment!
The issue here is not coverage of religion and religious issues. You’re absolutely right to say that they have become important and newsworthy in recent years. And many of us find them of great interest. Nor is there a problem with even-handed debate on the ethical issues of the day – in many cases demonstrating the huge area of agreement between thinking people of many faiths and beliefs. The BBC excels at news, documentary and intelligent debate.
The issue is the desire to use public broadcasting to “celebrate” Christianity, and the opposition to any erosoion of the historically privileged position religion – specifically Christianity – has had since Lord Reith’s time. The BBC is a wonderful institution, but if it were being designed today from scratch, would we really have the Daily Service, Thought for the Day, Faith in England, Songs of Praise etc?
The question of what a specifically humanist TV or radio programe would look like – equivalent to these religious programmes – is an interesting one. In many respects I suppose it would serve the same underlying need: helping humanists to think about and address the challenges of life from their ethical perspective, and enhancing their sense of belonging to a wider community of like-minded people. I can think of elderly humanists who would get as much out of that as I imagine their Christan equivalents get out of Songs of Praise. But on balance, given all the other forms of communication we now have available, I’d prefer not to have either on the BBC.
(By the way, I can understand your frustration with the modern use of the word “humanism” to refer specifically to what they call in America “secular humanism”. I guess it’s just one of those changes that happens as the language evolves. I don’t think that anyone would deny the existence of Christian humanists. Equally, modern humanists have a problem with the view – recently heard from Richard Harries – that Christian humanism is the sole foundation of modern secular humanism, the implication being that “we owe it all to Christianity”, when it can actually be traced back to the ancient Greeks, with major contributions from many other non-Christian thinkers.)
As I said above, I think Holmes is very ambiguous about what he means by “celebrate”. I also have objected to his motion, so on that point you’d get no argument from me.
I suspect on a larger scale the question of the place of specifically Christian privileges in public service broadcasting is also related to the fact of a privileged place for the Church of England in our largely unwritten constitution. I say that only to draw attention to the can of worms sitting on the shelf. I have no intention of opening it on this post, or to reply to any comments that get the can-opener out.
Agree, it’s an interesting topic, but one that wanders rather far from the original thread. The can-opener should stay in the drawer. All I would say is that the linking of continued religious privilege in public broadcasting to the Establishment of the CofE is likely to increase rather than decrease the pressure towards Disestablishment.
Comments on this entry are closed.