Radio 4 "Thought For The Day" Complaint

Initial Complaint (13th Jan 2007):

I often listen to The Today Programme whilst travelling to work and often listen to Thought For The Day, and was disgusted to read the following article whereby it appears that the BBC have positively rejected anyone providing a Thought For The Day unless they are religious.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,787108,00.html

I do not have any religious belief, just like many licence paying members of the public, and I am appalled that the BBC has discriminated against all persons who do not follow a particular faith.

Isn't the BBC meant to represent its licence paying public? If "Thought For The Day" was called "Religious Thought For The Day", then fine, but it is not. People that do not follow any particular faith are able to contribute thought provoking, postive statements to Radio 4 listens on equal terms to religious leaders, even though clearly, Radio 4 is happy to allow religious leaders from different faiths to provide such thoughts - I have heard both Christian leaders and Muslim leaders.

I'd like to understand on what grounds this discrimination has been allowed and accepted, and what Radio 4's view is of people who do not follow a particular faith, if they do not consider them worthy to provide a Thought For The Day to Radio 4 listeners?

BBC Response (5th Feb 2007)

The BBC's response has confidential in the footer, so I have not displayed it here, however, I have displayed my response to them below.

Response to the BBC (9th Feb 2007)

Thank you for your reply to my complaint. I have considered your response at some length and have reached the conclusion that your response does not satisfactorily answer my complaint.

Firstly, I agree that Thought For The Day (TFTD) is beneficial to all listeners, religious and non-religious alike. I also agree with you that religious people are not the only ones that have something worthwhile to say about morals and ethics. TFTD is indeed a unique slot that provides ‘spiritual’ guidance for all listeners to consider and reflect upon. However, this is where our agreement departs, and the starting point of that departure is in relation to the term 'spiritual'.

Spirituality is not sourced from a belief in a deity; belief in a deity is sourced from our inherent sense of existence, our capacity for empathy and compassion, and our ability to project a consciousness onto invisible and inanimate objects - have you ever been close to running out of petrol and heard yourself saying to your car "Come on, don't let me down. The garage is not too far away. You can get me there!"? Buddhism is considered a religion and yet no deity plays any part in this belief system. Spirituality is not exclusively obtained through a belief in a deity. Spiritual understanding is not exclusive to religious people; if it was, we would not both agree that non-religious and religious people can benefit from such guidance.

You also argue that “The vast swathe of general programmes makes little reference to religion, but approach the world from an overwhelmingly secular perspective, e.g. news…”. Like TFTD, programmes that make no reference to religion are beneficial to religious and non-religious people alike. It is also true that when a religious person drives their car to the shops they are performing a secular activity – ie. an activity that has no religious relevance; religious people cannot survive without the "vast swathe" of their daily activities being secular activities. To this end, it is also fair to say that the "vast swathe" of programmes make little reference to humanism, atheism or any other name for a lack of religion - ergo, the "vast swathe" of programmes are neutral on religious and non-religious beliefs alike.

Another argument you put forward is a statistical one: “a significant majority of the UK population (around 70 per cent), including increasing numbers from non-Christian faiths, claim a belief in God or describe themselves as ‘spiritual’”. Firstly it seems that you agree that spirituality does not require a belief in God, so maybe this is another point we do actually agree on? Assuming your statistics are correct, it would not be unreasonable to assume that up to 30% of TFTD slots could be available for 'spiritual' contributions from non-religious people. But then you say “Also, the level of attendance in religious activities among the Radio 4 audience is higher than the national average.” This statement is ambiguous, but assuming this means that the majority of listeners to Radio 4 are religious, then there are two points to make here: i) even if only 15% of listeners are non-religious, it is not unreasonable to assume that up to 15% of TFTD slots could include 'spiritual' contributions from non-religious people; ii) this majority of religious listeners must want to listen to the “vast swathe of general programmes“ that make “little reference to religion”, supporting my point made in the previous paragraph.

Other points put forward are: “Broadening the brief would detract from the distinctiveness of the slot.” and “The BBC believes that all licence fee payers have the right to hear their reasonable views and beliefs reflected on its output.”. The distinctiveness of the slot is the ‘spiritual’ content, not the person providing the message; are you saying that a person who has spent their life helping deprived people across the world, who has seen suffering that most of us could not imagine, and who has also seen examples of the human spirit being so strong as to succeed against all odds, would not be welcome on TFTD just because they do not subscribe to a recognised religion? As a licence fee payer, I agree that I have the right to hear this person’s reasonable views reflected on your programme. Clearly the BBC, who has explicitly excluded such a person from contributing, does not actually agree with my licence fee paying right as it claims to believe.

I will close with reference to a point you made in your main opening paragraph: “'Thought for the Day' has been a regular feature on BBC Radio for nearly 40 years”. It is true to say that 40 years ago you could have discriminated against someone for being too young or too old, if you wanted to. Fortunately, our society has moved on and is now a society based on inclusion and equality; I am not suggesting that every week a non-religious person should be appearing on TFTD, but to explicitly exclude people who could provide a unique spiritual contribution from their experience of the human spirit, because they have exercised their right to freely choose what they believe, is nothing more than blatant and unwarranted discrimination.

Further Response from BBC (5th March 2007)

The BBC stated that there is little more they can add to their previous response to my initial complaint, and that I can take it up with the Editorial Complaints Unit (ESC) if I believe there is something editorially wrong with the programme.

I will be writing a formal letter of complaint to the ESC, and will then take it to the board of the BBC Trust if I am not satisfied with their response.

Escalation to the Editorial Complaints Unit (5th March 2007)

Editorial Complaints Unit, BBC,
Media Centre, Media Village,
201 Wood Lane,
London. W12 7TQ.

5th March 2007

Dear Sir / Madam

I have recently complained to the BBC via the Complaint Portal on the BBC Website and received a response that was wholly unsatisfactory. I subsequently responded to explain why I was not satisfied and I have now received a brief email that includes:

“I am afraid, further to the response you have already received from the BBC regarding this matter, there is little more I can add.”

I have attached the 4 communications as listed below and would like my complaint to be answered appropriately, as opposed to simply receiving a standard letter that does not adequately answer my complaint, that can not be added to.

Attachments

• Initial complaint sent on 13th Jan 2007
• Response from the BBC on 5th Feb 2007
• My response back to the BBC on 9th Feb 2007
• Response from the BBC on 5th Mar 2007
  

Yours faithfully

Further Response from BBC (12th March 2007)

I received a letter telling me that I was misinformed about contacting the Editorial Complaints Unit, for which the BBC apologises, and that my correspondence has been passed to the management of BBC Information so that it can receive attention at a more senior level.

reposted from: AAC
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments