Objections seem mainly based round the sheer repetitiveness and lack of teeth displayed in the content and the fact that atheistic perspectives are not included which, in a multicultural society, suggests imbalance. Support for the slot is focused round accusations of an animosity toward faith-based view-points in broadcasting and the allegedly ever decreasing airtime given to religion by the BBC.
 |
| © Hearing Voices Cymru network |
In our household, Thought for the Day is often the moment we remember the cat needs a clean litter tray or some item has to be printed off urgently for work. I agree with the presenters who've pointed out that you can almost guess what many of the slots will convey. There are one or two shining exceptions among the speakers and I would argue that the whole enterprise would have more impact if the programme kept a sparkling, incisive or entertaining Occasional Thought but got rid of the rest. And please do let's be fair to atheists, philosophers and ethicists if the thing is about belief in a multicultural society. (I was under the impression that we do hear from humanists sometimes?)
In the delivery of the speakers, you can usually hear sincerity and a desire to communicate that which is precious to them. But is this what's required? In the middle of a programme which doesn't dodge the sharp issues of the day, why does the 'religious bit' so often not rise above the level of illustrated platitude? I, for one, would like to learn about what each religion's impact actually is (not what believers wish or think it might be.) So, heavily supplement the academic, clerical contributors with more ordinary, practising believers (and atheists) engaged in professions that throw up tricky dilemmas. Hunt out the leaders of faith-related projects that have demonstrably changed some or other situation. Use religious correspondents and journalists. Let's hear from people who live with challenging difficulties because of their faith. And please can we actually have some news? (I mean that in the sense of 'something that is new to us'.) If this can be accompanied by well researched comment, so much the better. The religious presenter ought to respect the serious journalistic enterprise which characterises the rest of the programme. Comment can be drawn from a faith's tradition, but let it be more than wishful thinking and let it be engaging and motivating. This is a challenge to the speakers but also a challenge to the programme's editors to do a bit more digging around to find suitable contributors.
Finally, before I cut myself off by exceeding my limit, there's a serious pitfall for the would-be religious broadcaster. It's nigh-on impossible to deliver a credible message of the 'there-is-much-to-be-recommended-in-our-faith' variety to a world that sees religious extremism and intolerance, religious bickering and persecution and abuse in religious institutions. Yes, some of us would accept that we should expect to find sin/wrong-doing everywhere (others would not) but there's a huge turn-off factor in attempting to present the 'religious world view' or one's own faith as theoretically offering privileged wisdom; humility is required. Put simply, no-one would accept lectures on behaviour from a corrupt and misbehaving faculty. People are convinced by true stories about what has been achieved, what has been changed, what is admitted to be wrong and what is dreamed of by exceptional visionaries (who usually have clay feet and not much status.)
No comments:
Post a Comment