Anyway here's the link. If you're not a friend here is what happened:
Tom Cole Rowan Williams, the BBC might well be funded by the licence fee but that doesn't mean it has to broadcast more material for Christians. I pay the licence fee too, yet I don't get upset about Auntie's lack of full-bore smut, visceral horror and Cheech and Chong marathons. Don't I count, Rowan?!
Simon Gardinerpoints ou that public service broadcasting is what the license fee is for.....
"Ofcom's phase one review of public service broadcasting states that religious programming is "generally considered to be core PSB territory".[51] Section 264(6) of the Communications Act 2003 requires that public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom must include services of a suitable quality and range dealing with a number of subjects including "religion and other beliefs". For the purposes of the Act a belief is defined as "a collective belief in, or other adherence to, a systemised set of ethical or philosophical principles or of mystical or transcendental doctrines" (section 264(13)). Therefore broadcasting covering religion and other beliefs is part of the remit of all public service channels."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/128/12811.htm
"Ofcom's phase one review of public service broadcasting states that religious programming is "generally considered to be core PSB territory".[51] Section 264(6) of the Communications Act 2003 requires that public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom must include services of a suitable quality and range dealing with a number of subjects including "religion and other beliefs". For the purposes of the Act a belief is defined as "a collective belief in, or other adherence to, a systemised set of ethical or philosophical principles or of mystical or transcendental doctrines" (section 264(13)). Therefore broadcasting covering religion and other beliefs is part of the remit of all public service channels."
http://www.publications.pa
The logical conclusion to this is to say this, sorry Tom you don't count. Its called public service broadcasting not Tom Cole service broadcasting- that's what the internet is for.
Rowan Williams is appointed to represent the views of a relatively large people, and he has a pretty strong case that the BBC is not living up to its charter on this one.
The BBC has gutted its religious programmes commissioning department and reduced the quantity of religious programming on the World Service. Reducing religious output (especially Christian) on the World Service is particularly serious as most religious broadcasting verges on the insane.
Also he deserves a break- he wasn't one of the nutcases protesting about Jerry Springer the opera.
Tom Cole
Tom Cole
He got one in there without me even getting a chance to reply!!
Simon GardinerAnyway that is where we are up to so far.....
So here's what more I have to say
There is a great danger in democracy that everyone assumes everyone else is just like them and that their life experience is representative of everyone else's. I think Tom has fallen into this seductive trap.
The facts of the matter are that I couldn't find any cinema data on people attending porn or horror cinemas, but if you look at this report from the BBC you will see that cinema attendance overall was estimated at 156 million people in 2006. Or 3m people per week.
This article, suggests at the bottom that porn channels account for 5% of Sky's business which recorded £5bn in sales in 2008. Reading the article I think that they got that number [5%] from working out that there are 55 channels providing adult entertainment on Sky (55 divided by 1000 channels). They also point out that these channels do not publish subscriber numbers. I don't think there is anyone who is seriously claiming that Sky makes most of its money from these channels. Sky has just over 9m subscribers, so its £5bn is about £45 per month per subscriber. Lets to a completely pointless and unrepresentative calculation- assume 5% of Sky's income was from the porn channels (not the millions of people subscribing to films and sports channels), and people were paying £5 per night as the Belfast Telegraph article suggests they can. How many people would that be? The answer is 50m views per year. I think that is totally unrepresentative as a number. But bear it in mind. That is just under 1m people per week.
Ok so now the religious numbers:
In the 2001 census everyone had the chance to tick a box to say what religion they were, they could leave it blank, they could answer no religion or they could write in what religion they were. It was by this process that I believe Jedi became an official religion of the UK, I don't know who the people who wrote that think the joke is on- but anyway.
The results came back like this:
71% of people said they were Christian, or 41,000,000. 15% said they had no religion, and 8% were too stupid or too arrogant or too insulted or whatever to tick the box, we'll assume they have no religion to, if only 'cos there are enough pillocks filling the numbers of the religious out already. That means that about 13,000,000 people have no religion.
Ah you say- but none of them go to church. And you'd be right. Well actually you wouldn't. Here's the result of the most recent survey of church attendance I could find freely available for linking to etc on the internet. Its for England only so its only out of 50,000,000. The other data for films and Sky covers the whole UK. Anyway it shows that 'usual' church attendees number 3m per week or approximately 150m per year.
Anyway Tom you are flat out wrong. The BBC devotes more hours per week providing free advertising to cinemas than it does to broadcasting about religion. I don't think that is particularly justifiable. I'm not here advocating taking off Film 2009 with Jonathon Ross (but you could I wouldn't complain), to make way for more Songs of Praise. But it should be possible for the BBC to seriously engage with an issue as important as religion. It is running away from its statutory obligation to represent for better or worse the established religion of the majority of the population of this country.
While they are at it they could make a programme about both the Plymouth Brethren and the Enlightenment. I'd watch both... probably.... if it had tits and blood spurts in it!
Rowan Williams is appointed to represent the views of a relatively large people, and he has a pretty strong case that the BBC is not living up to its charter on this one.
The BBC has gutted its religious programmes commissioning department and reduced the quantity of religious programming on the World Service. Reducing religious output (especially Christian) on the World Service is particularly serious as most religious broadcasting verges on the insane.
Also he deserves a break- he wasn't one of the nutcases protesting about Jerry Springer the opera.
Tom Cole
Heh heh. 'Tom Cole service broadcasting' sounds brilliant...!
No, in all seriousness, I take your point that anything made by the BBC isn't likely to be the sort of ludicrous puff-pastry that passes for telly on God Europe (actually, did you know that when the God Channel first launched there was The God Channel and God 2, which is pretty bizarre for a monotheistic religion, eh?). And, again, point taken that Williams isn't too objectionable (on the whole, even though I think he's intellectually dishonest for the sake of preserving the status quo).
My problem here is with certain sectors of the populace assuming they've got a right to legislate BBC output purely on the basis of the licence fee. As I say, I pay the fucker too and see nothing which represents me or my interests (well, some of BBC4's output, granted...). I may not be definable, but I'll tell you this: if you took a straw poll of the populace and offered them the chance to see Songs of Praise Part II: Return of the Lord or Jenna and Friends go Wild in Estonia, the former would be stripped from the schedules before you could say 'Tiswas'. Christians may make up a proportion of the populace, but so do philosophy-loving slackers...
I mean, who the hell is BBC3 aimed at?!
But anyhow, my attitude's probably explicable by the following: I don't believe in the licence fee. Like all forms of democracy, it doesn't work. And leaves us with Strictly Come Dancing. UGH!
No, in all seriousness, I take your point that anything made by the BBC isn't likely to be the sort of ludicrous puff-pastry that passes for telly on God Europe (actually, did you know that when the God Channel first launched there was The God Channel and God 2, which is pretty bizarre for a monotheistic religion, eh?). And, again, point taken that Williams isn't too objectionable (on the whole, even though I think he's intellectually dishonest for the sake of preserving the status quo).
My problem here is with certain sectors of the populace assuming they've got a right to legislate BBC output purely on the basis of the licence fee. As I say, I pay the fucker too and see nothing which represents me or my interests (well, some of BBC4's output, granted...). I may not be definable, but I'll tell you this: if you took a straw poll of the populace and offered them the chance to see Songs of Praise Part II: Return of the Lord or Jenna and Friends go Wild in Estonia, the former would be stripped from the schedules before you could say 'Tiswas'. Christians may make up a proportion of the populace, but so do philosophy-loving slackers...
I mean, who the hell is BBC3 aimed at?!
But anyhow, my attitude's probably explicable by the following: I don't believe in the licence fee. Like all forms of democracy, it doesn't work. And leaves us with Strictly Come Dancing. UGH!
Tom Cole
Also, 'collective belief'?! Man, Christianity is a 'collective belief' of the country on the statute books only... I'm not denigrating, I'm just saying so.
Mind, this makes me wonder. If all it takes to enact change is a publicly-recognised presence, I wonder if banding together all other cynical Gen X types and calling ourselves Transcendental Slackitators would wok? No? OK then...
Mind, this makes me wonder. If all it takes to enact change is a publicly-recognised presence, I wonder if banding together all other cynical Gen X types and calling ourselves Transcendental Slackitators would wok? No? OK then...
He got one in there without me even getting a chance to reply!!
Simon Gardiner
Well we can all get on board with BBC3 bashing.
I don't think the license fee has anything to do with democracy, the whole point of it is to insulate us from it.
If you wanted to make a case against the license fee (I should come out as 100% in favour), I would say that the BBC should be made to dump all local radio and a whole heap of digital radio stations (probably all of the extra ones). BBC3 and BBC4 should be scrapped and their good content used to back fill for the shite on BBC1 and 2 these days....
Ban cross promotion- sell off its other media outlets (sorry radio times boy), I think the magazines and the publishing is quite difficult to justify too.
Also I don't think you're being very fair- no-one is suggesting Songs of Praise II- (that's alot of dashes) but rebroadcasting 'thought for the day' perhaps with a panel discussion afterwards for half an hour per week on the World Service wouldn't do anyone any harm.
And they should not be able to count the Heaven and Earth show as religious programming. Its like this morning for dunderheads.
They could make a programme where philosophers and theologians discuss the implications of the ideas in Richard Dawkins' books. There's the possibility to make an interesting programme about cross denominational and cross-religious debate. I wouldn't watch it but provided it was made properly I don't see any reason why it shouldn't fulfill everyone's criteria of what PSB should be.
Anyway just two ideas which I think shouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility but I don't think the BBC is interested enough in making serious programming.
For the record its a slightly odd way to make the argument against the pap on tv to argue in favour of broadcasting pornography and slasher movies. I can't believe I'm writing this but I'd rather watch Songs of Praise.
Tom ColeI'm being deliberately OTT (ask Ed - if I can, I'll always exaggerate).
Actually the BBC already has a show like the panel show idea you mentioned. It's called The Big Questions, it's broadcast on Sunday mornings and it's a pile of wank. I wrote a blog about it on Pessismystic a little while ago which was so vitriolic it caused a relationship to end. So, yeah, to my mind they've not got it quite right yet.
Oh, and your Beeb reforms are pretty much what I'd suggest too! Yeah, it'd mean I'd be cut adrift but, m'eh, omlettes and eggs. And besides, it'd mean I'd be free to lie around in bed all day watching Sun Ra documentaries from BBC4 which have taken over Flog It's slot in the schedules.
And since Auntie's slashed its factual and news budgets, I think it's fair to say that serious programming's not at the top of its agenda. If Tess Daly ain't on it, it don't mean a thing.
But returning to our original point: I want smut and horror. Rowan Williams wants more religious programming. Why should his request be acknowledged while mine's ignored? Again, I genuinely don't believe that Christianity's a mainstream enough belief to dictate media output. It's as if the Plymouth Brethren demanded BBC programmes dedicated to their beliefs, simply because there's more than one member of their cult in society.
Also, and this might be a bit contentious, isn't it dangerous and misguided in this day and age to promote any world religion uncritically by pandering to its requests? The more forelock-tugging that goes on to appease religion, the more muddied the waters of reason become. Why have we collectively renounced the Enlightenment over the past ten years or so?
I don't think the license fee has anything to do with democracy, the whole point of it is to insulate us from it.
If you wanted to make a case against the license fee (I should come out as 100% in favour), I would say that the BBC should be made to dump all local radio and a whole heap of digital radio stations (probably all of the extra ones). BBC3 and BBC4 should be scrapped and their good content used to back fill for the shite on BBC1 and 2 these days....
Ban cross promotion- sell off its other media outlets (sorry radio times boy), I think the magazines and the publishing is quite difficult to justify too.
Also I don't think you're being very fair- no-one is suggesting Songs of Praise II- (that's alot of dashes) but rebroadcasting 'thought for the day' perhaps with a panel discussion afterwards for half an hour per week on the World Service wouldn't do anyone any harm.
And they should not be able to count the Heaven and Earth show as religious programming. Its like this morning for dunderheads.
They could make a programme where philosophers and theologians discuss the implications of the ideas in Richard Dawkins' books. There's the possibility to make an interesting programme about cross denominational and cross-religious debate. I wouldn't watch it but provided it was made properly I don't see any reason why it shouldn't fulfill everyone's criteria of what PSB should be.
Anyway just two ideas which I think shouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility but I don't think the BBC is interested enough in making serious programming.
For the record its a slightly odd way to make the argument against the pap on tv to argue in favour of broadcasting pornography and slasher movies. I can't believe I'm writing this but I'd rather watch Songs of Praise.
Tom ColeI'm being deliberately OTT (ask Ed - if I can, I'll always exaggerate).
Actually the BBC already has a show like the panel show idea you mentioned. It's called The Big Questions, it's broadcast on Sunday mornings and it's a pile of wank. I wrote a blog about it on Pessismystic a little while ago which was so vitriolic it caused a relationship to end. So, yeah, to my mind they've not got it quite right yet.
Oh, and your Beeb reforms are pretty much what I'd suggest too! Yeah, it'd mean I'd be cut adrift but, m'eh, omlettes and eggs. And besides, it'd mean I'd be free to lie around in bed all day watching Sun Ra documentaries from BBC4 which have taken over Flog It's slot in the schedules.
And since Auntie's slashed its factual and news budgets, I think it's fair to say that serious programming's not at the top of its agenda. If Tess Daly ain't on it, it don't mean a thing.
But returning to our original point: I want smut and horror. Rowan Williams wants more religious programming. Why should his request be acknowledged while mine's ignored? Again, I genuinely don't believe that Christianity's a mainstream enough belief to dictate media output. It's as if the Plymouth Brethren demanded BBC programmes dedicated to their beliefs, simply because there's more than one member of their cult in society.
Also, and this might be a bit contentious, isn't it dangerous and misguided in this day and age to promote any world religion uncritically by pandering to its requests? The more forelock-tugging that goes on to appease religion, the more muddied the waters of reason become. Why have we collectively renounced the Enlightenment over the past ten years or so?
So here's what more I have to say
There is a great danger in democracy that everyone assumes everyone else is just like them and that their life experience is representative of everyone else's. I think Tom has fallen into this seductive trap.
The facts of the matter are that I couldn't find any cinema data on people attending porn or horror cinemas, but if you look at this report from the BBC you will see that cinema attendance overall was estimated at 156 million people in 2006. Or 3m people per week.
This article, suggests at the bottom that porn channels account for 5% of Sky's business which recorded £5bn in sales in 2008. Reading the article I think that they got that number [5%] from working out that there are 55 channels providing adult entertainment on Sky (55 divided by 1000 channels). They also point out that these channels do not publish subscriber numbers. I don't think there is anyone who is seriously claiming that Sky makes most of its money from these channels. Sky has just over 9m subscribers, so its £5bn is about £45 per month per subscriber. Lets to a completely pointless and unrepresentative calculation- assume 5% of Sky's income was from the porn channels (not the millions of people subscribing to films and sports channels), and people were paying £5 per night as the Belfast Telegraph article suggests they can. How many people would that be? The answer is 50m views per year. I think that is totally unrepresentative as a number. But bear it in mind. That is just under 1m people per week.
Ok so now the religious numbers:
In the 2001 census everyone had the chance to tick a box to say what religion they were, they could leave it blank, they could answer no religion or they could write in what religion they were. It was by this process that I believe Jedi became an official religion of the UK, I don't know who the people who wrote that think the joke is on- but anyway.
The results came back like this:
71% of people said they were Christian, or 41,000,000. 15% said they had no religion, and 8% were too stupid or too arrogant or too insulted or whatever to tick the box, we'll assume they have no religion to, if only 'cos there are enough pillocks filling the numbers of the religious out already. That means that about 13,000,000 people have no religion.
Ah you say- but none of them go to church. And you'd be right. Well actually you wouldn't. Here's the result of the most recent survey of church attendance I could find freely available for linking to etc on the internet. Its for England only so its only out of 50,000,000. The other data for films and Sky covers the whole UK. Anyway it shows that 'usual' church attendees number 3m per week or approximately 150m per year.
Anyway Tom you are flat out wrong. The BBC devotes more hours per week providing free advertising to cinemas than it does to broadcasting about religion. I don't think that is particularly justifiable. I'm not here advocating taking off Film 2009 with Jonathon Ross (but you could I wouldn't complain), to make way for more Songs of Praise. But it should be possible for the BBC to seriously engage with an issue as important as religion. It is running away from its statutory obligation to represent for better or worse the established religion of the majority of the population of this country.
While they are at it they could make a programme about both the Plymouth Brethren and the Enlightenment. I'd watch both... probably.... if it had tits and blood spurts in it!
