"I will e-mail the BBC to object to "Thought for the Day" but only if 100 other people will do the same."
— Gavin Orland (contact)
Deadline to sign up by: 31st December 2008
1,660 people signed up (1560 over target)
Country: United Kingdom
More details
"Thought for the Day" is a slot during BBC Radio 4's "Today Programme" in which airtime is handed over to religious commentators to try to interpret world events in the context of their texts and bestow their wisdom upon us all.
The fact that this interruption occurs during the BBC's flagship radio news programme, which is otherwise supposed to apply exacting standards of evidence, makes it totally and utterly incongruous. Not only is "Thought for the Day" on during this programme, but it is given absolute peak time at approximately 7.47am, just as many people are waiting for the 8am headlines and getting ready to leave for work.
In addition, the fact that humanist, non-religious contributors, are excluded from the slot gives the impression the BBC believes morality is the exclusive remit of religious people, which is offensive, unrepresentative and untrue.
As such, "Thought for the Day" is an insult to intelligent listeners. It is high time there was a concerted campaign insisting that it either:
1) accept non-religious contributors (for example A.C. Grayling)
or
2) be removed from The Today Programme's schedule altogether
During the week commencing 1st January 2009 I will email the Today Programme to object to Thought for the Day in writing - but only if 100 other people do the same.
Although the Today Programme often passes the TFTD buck to the BBC "Religion & Ethics" unit (a conflation indicative of how they view matters) we will address our mails to where the problem appears: today[at]bbc.co.uk.
See more pledges, and all about how PledgeBank works.

Gavin Orland, the Pledge Creator, joined by:
I think that at official petition may also be in order - through the 10 Downing Street Website. The BBC is publicly funded by UK licence payers and therefore answers directly to the Government. It is their job to make sure that all licence payers are fairly represented and not discriminated.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/communicate/e...
What do you think?
I think the No. 10 Petition idea is a good one (it's one I considered). Let's be sure we make ourselves heard loudly and clearly with this route first then perhaps see about the governmental route if the voice of rational people is still ignored in the new year.
I'm hoping for many more than 100 signatories on this. Please spread the word far and wide and keep them coming in: we need to show the BBC what we think about this issue.
Thought provoking ideas and morality are not just the preserve of those who believe in absurdities, rational people have them too.
>>
Thanks for your email about Pause for Thought, you are right in saying
we don't have non-theist contributors on Pause for Thought, that's
because the slot is designed to hear from people of faiths about their
lives and expriences(sp). I appreicate(sp) that as a 'bright' this might seem
frustrating, but we make every effort for our Pause for Thoughts to be
open to all, the faithful or not.
<<
"the slot is designed to hear from people of faiths ", and "we make every effort for our Pause for Thoughts to be open to all, the faithful or not"
Is it me?? we can listen to them but they mustn't listen to us??
Please consider the target amount only a nominal value, and keep signing up, even as it is exceeded. (PledgeBank actually recommend a target of only 10, and its hard to predict how many signatories a pledge will attract.)
The BHA has said it will publicise the campaign to 4,000 people and it is being publicised elsewhere too, so I look forward to watching it develop and to us all telling the BBC what we think in January.
1) accept non-religious contributors (for example A.C. Grayling)
or
2) be removed from The Today Programme's schedule all together
Personally I'd be content with a third option: change the name to Religious Thought for the Day.
At the very least please name it for what it is.
In view of this, if ‘Thought For The Day’ is to continue then, as we live in a democratic society, irrespective of whether it is secular, the programme should fairly represent the religious and non religious sections of the community UNLESS the BBC believe that the religious groups are the only people who have the right to have moral views or opinions. On this basis I think a reasonably fair allocation of programme space should be 3 days per week for Christians, 1 day a week for non-religious groups, and 1 day per week for all the other groups on a rolling basis, although the latter is more than generous based on their representation in the community.
As a Bright I would be prepared accept this arrangement as reasonably equitable, although in a secular society it could be argued that national broadcasts, particularly of this genre, should have no religious bias.
Alternatively get rid of ‘Thought For The Day’ or at the very least be honest and rename it ‘Religious Thought For The Day’ and allow non religious groups to have their own equivalent programme
This is my contribution to the cause.
On those occasions when someone spouts drivel about whatever's in the headlines, and then tops it off with a non sequitur that includes an unjustified assertion about what Jesus would have done, then I think the perpetrator (generally Anne Atkins) should expect to be ritually disembowelled by John Humphrys immediately afterwards.
The least they could do would be to occasionally allow someone that is rational enough to have an uncontaminated thought to present the thought for the day -- a piece about The Prisoner's Dilemma could be made far more thought provoking that any of the religion-based pseudo-thoughts I've heard of late.
"How strange that a group of middle aged people that occupy a parallel universe in which they hear voices from invisible friends are given air time to preach to sane people........
Richard Handley, 2 days ago.
WHAT THE HELL HAS PEOPLE'S AGES GOT TO DO WITH THIS?
I'm over 70, Richard. Don't fight superstition by resorting to ageism!
Let's stay on the same side!
Fight PREJUDICE on the BBC. Fight it wherever it is!
Toby
Good luck!
http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/in...
I favour direct action. Both the BBC and the government are very PC and pro-religion, and the latter freely ignore petitions (case in point: the recent faith schools one with 19,000 signatures was simply dismissed).
Please continue to spread the word and link to this.
Thought for the Day must be given normal editorial balance.
Do they mean these are two sparate things... Or just that atheists can't be ethical?
Do these people think at all?
Eve
Gordon Sinclair (Humanist)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes...
And I will ask everyone to have a special listen to TFTD just to be reminded of how annoying and insulting it is before we object formally in January.
Please *keep spreading the word about this*, and many thanks. I hope in due course we can rid the airwaves of this kind of superstitious nonsense.
"Atheists don't think!" BBC
Only the faithful have thoughts!
It makes me so angry!
Leila
If religious people were honest with themselves, they would know that their private doubts about the existence of a god are evidence that they can think for themselves; however, professional self serving religious leaders tell them and us that their doubts should be dismissed as merely a test of their faith.
This is an insult to the intelligence of all of humanity.
"Do not accept anything by mere tradition. Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures... but when you know for yourselves—then do you live acting accordingly."
Gautama Buddha, the Kalama Sutra
Liz
Can we not get John Humphreys to spontaneously combust during a Tftd segment?
I'm fed up with being preached at in the safety of my own home. I could just turn the radio off, but a portion of my licence fee goes to the normally excellent programming on Radio 4, and I think the Today programme is not reflecting MY beliefs.
Lets have a TftD that includes all free thinking persons!
What happened on Nov 18th !
Julia
Eve Williams
It is disgraceful that the BBC promotes delusional religious beliefs as though they were incontestable facts.
At the very least this programme should be renamed "Religious TFTD" and equal air time given to an "Atheist/Humanist TFTD". Lots of topics at smartsociety.org (Sensible Minds Against Religious Teachings!)
Now imagine you had a problem person at a party. This is like directing all complaints to that person themselves, rather than to the host - they are hardly likely to shout about it.
I think I know what happened on November 18th. The campaign got a plug in the British Humanist Association newsletter - for which much thanks.
This is really great that we have exceeded ten times the original pledge target, with more than 1,000 signatories. It says something important too, something that the BBC cannot ignore: rational people are sick and tired of being lectured to by superstitious people in the form of TFTD.
We'll keep the pledge going into December, as planned. Please continue to mention it and link to it!
With no listeners, they will have to do some listening themselves...
Sorry, but I'm having a lousy morning!
How many listeners to TFTD are there? In this democracy, we abide by majority decisions.
Why should the BBC listen to 1092 objectors if it has 30,000 satisfied listeners who look forward to hearing it, though not all will agree with what is said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editoria...
Also, how about addresses to COPY our efforts to?
You can't herd cats, but a few tips on points to raise might help. AND PLEASE AN INJUNCTION TO KEEP ALL EMAILS POLITE.
Good luck, and more strength to your elbow!
Liz
In this I will:
- Suggest primary and secondary e-mail addresses to use
- Outline what I see as the main arguments against TFTD
- Report on the BBC's stock responses so far
- Detail how these may be refuted
- Provide and optional e-mail template
- Suggest what might be done next if this fails
Please keep "spreading the word" about this. Many thanks.
Radio Devon allows Humanists a slot so why not national BBC?
When you hear the words "Now it's time for Thought for the Day".
The trouble is it's easy to forget to ever turn it back on again, so I end up not listening to The Today Programme much at all. This because of TFTD.
There is a bigger overall concern in that whenever it comes to religion, or assisted dying, the BBC can be relied on to encourage those points of view that represent the establishment status quo against those shown time and again by surveys that indicate 80% of the public agree that there should be a law permitting assisted dying. As for religion; one could be excused for believing that although more and more people ignore religion the BBC seems to champion the beliefs of the minority. When did they last allow speakers from the Humanist Association or atheists to give their ’thoughts for the day’. Whilst the BBC, along with papers such as the Daily Mail, show intolerance of the views of the majority towards these topics progress towards a break with the archaic and intolerance of the minority will continue.
"If you believe in fairies clap your hands!"
(And, "If you don't - shut up!")
DITCH TFTD !
todaycomplaints@bbc.co.uk
instead of or as well as the other address. I think the complaints address is a more formal process and should be more likely to get a response.
Have people also considered contacting the BBC directors and other relevant people?
Thanks, I hope it makes a difference!
Thus the BBC looses many listeners.
BBC take note.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/directorgen...
There's also a wikipedia article that has information about why this happened, and some background information about TFTD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_for...
There should not be an assumption that such views, in the 21st century, should be treated with any credence or respect when they are broadcast by public bodies such as the BBC the same goes for any public funding of religion either to voluntary organisations or to faith schools.
It's time to make good on your pledge. From Jan 1st, tell them how you feel about this. Many thanks for your support!
Confident mature-minded people who do not need faith to understand their place in the world listen to this few minutes every day and it reinforces their non-superstitious and therefore non-religious world-view, however, vulnerable and/or young minds may be influenced to believe some of the absurdities regarded as issues of faith by the current set of religious contributors.
I asked the BBC to completely revise TFTD to include topical "thoughts" on non-faith-based ethical and moral principles and practices; or if they can't bring themselves to do this, to remove it from an otherwise excellent programme.
But this isn't how these e-mails will come across. As often happens we atheists will come across as swivel eyed loons, who cannot bear others expressing their religious beliefs. At best these mails will be ignored. At worst they will be reported on, to howls of sanctimonious victim-cries from TftD's contributers.
Please, please, please, if we must send these things, let them be scrupulously polite (especially about religion), and emphasis that we are suggesting that TftD could be broadened out to other listeners like me (and John Humphreys), not simply canceled.
http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/in...
It can be quite funny :)
http://www.pledgebank.com/thoughtforthed...
You need to be logged into Pledgebank. Here you can see my call to action and the e-mail I will be sending. (An observant person has pointed out to me that where I say "under-represent", regarding the BBC's charter, I mean "represent" - I'll be amending this before sending.)
I admire Richard Dawkins greatly, I am an atheist, and I loathe the arrogance of those who claim to speak with the authority of a god. But I do think that Dawkins made a mistake on that occasion.
I will sign up to this pledge & send an email to the BBC
KK
Fingers crossed.
Dan
Is everyone doing what I am doing, ie waiting till later to avoid the log-jam on day 1? :-)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...
Delia: So far the BBC seem to be using their stock response e-mails, which is perhaps understandable given the volume of mail they're now receiving. Let's give them a bit of time to get together a proper response.
Alan: I guess most people are not using the Pledgebank system any more but they might well still be sending their e-mails. At least 100 have cc'd me.
Sue's article should help!
I had the same problem as John Stretch but find if you log in at this site you can tick the pledge.
Cheers
David
Eve
Just a note to say that although the pledge has closed here, the topic has not closed.
If you object to TFTD, you can of course e-mail the BBC at any time. I posted my own e-mail and some potential addresses here: http://www.gavinorland.com/religion/thou...
Regards,
Gavin
Go to it folks!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2009/01/t...
I can say, however, that the response did not address the issues I raised in my complaint.
Their argument for keeping TFTD boiled down to the fact that they think that Radio 4 listeners "regularly engage" with TFTD whether they are "believers" or not. The rest of the reply was just padding and waffle.
This is an incredibly thin argument.
The question is, should they be entitled to enforce their preference on everyone else, even in the face of very well reasoned arguments which they seem not even to be reading? I think not.
The reply is quite pathetic in failure to address the issues and has stimulated an enormous number of comments on the above blog nearly all opposing Mark Damazer's position.
What now Gavin? We can't let this drop!
Many of the comments there have degenerated into religious bickering do not directly address the relatively pathetic points that Mark Damazer makes.
The link is:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2009/01/t...
It is quick and easy to create a blog account there if you don't already have one.
Dear Mark Damazer
Thank you for your reply regarding balance in TFTD.
I think you find this a difficult question because you are searching for arguments to defend the indefensible: to find plausible excuses for disregarding the BBC's own guidelines within the TFTD slot.
You are right that it is is a unique slot. This makes it all the more important that it should embody the principle of balanced broadcasting. You refer to the the balance of religious/non-religious voices elswehere in your programming but this is not being questioned and seems irrelevant..
You say that the slot is intended to offer "a brief, uninterrupted interlude of spiritual reflection" (it often doesn't succeed in this) but are you suggesting that only religious people are spiritual? Exactly how would including an occasional humanist detectably "broaden the brief" in view of the already bizarrely wide range of faiths represented, and how would it "detract from the distinctiveness of the slot"? Do you know anything about humanism?
Yes I do realise that you are "broadcasting to the general Radio 4 audience which regularly engages with the comments and ideas expressed by our contributors from the world's major faiths - whether they are believers or not", and I am sure that many of them have no problem with TFTD. But I am writing as a listener who does feel strongly about the matter and who feel that the essence of your reasoning for maintaining the status quo amounts to no more that that some listeners might like TFTD to remain exactly as it is and you agree with them.
Yours sincerely
Delia Ives
Delia asks "What next?". I think if you have e-mailed, wait a little while, and if not, e-mail. Also comment on that forum as George urges and bring the debate concisely back on topic.
Mr Damazer is now under a lot of (perfectly reasonable) pressure on this. It just needs to be maintained.
I have learned that PM are planning a humanist "Thought for the Afternoon" to go out tomorrow. Great, as long as this is not considered by the BBC to be a consolation prize (as the one-off Dawkins slot was) and doesn't detract from the main objectives of this campaign as stated in the pledge details.
I'm really looking forward to hearing the likes of A.C. Grayling on Today, or having the slot dropped from there...
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/8302
The IPM blog has had nearly 400 posts and I would say the majority of posters, including believers and non-believers are in support of accepting non-religious contributors.
Although the BBC response to this campaign has been extremely disappointing so far, we cannot give up now!
According to someone who edited wikipedia two years back Mark is Jewish. Judaism gets a huge amount of exposure from TftD, particularly when it is put into the context that their worshipers account for under 0.3% of the world population, which isn't even the population of Holland. Any change whether taking it off the air or adding secular viewers would almost certainly detriment Jewish airtime.
Of course, I am certain that Mark would be very professional and objective in his work as you would expect of anybody in his position. Having said that he should still follow any guidelines that there may be.. if there are any...
There certainly are guidelines and as far a I can see TftD breaks them. I will try and find the link and post it here.
A little more illumination.
I try and work out the best way to quanitfy and illustrate lack of balance in TFTD.
A little more illumination.
Does anyone know where I can find a breakdown of numbers of TftDs by religion for the past 12 months or so?
Firstly he trots out the obvious canard that religious content is some kind of balance to secular content. The suggestion is the neutrality of the other content of the Today programme is balanced by a bias towards the religious.
It is a very strong religious conviction that anything that isn't directly inspired by religion must therefore be against it. That certainly doesn't tally with general opinion in the UK today. He makes the ridiculous point that other contributors are not religious without recognising that some of the other contributors ARE religious. We would surely expect the religious to non-religous to be reasonably balanced. Secularism is balance NOT the absence of religion and only the religiously biased would hope to frame it as anything else.
He proposes to take balance and create balance by providing imbalance. The man is a fool.
Secondly he submits the chestnut that the religious content is also balanced in other output. Anyone who has bothered to read the BBC editorial guidelines on Impartiality and Diversity and I would expect the controller of Radio 4 to do so, would know that the BBC itself in its guidelines specifically excludes the defence of balance in other areas of the output.
The man is a careless fool.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget....
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com...
The pressure continues.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2009/01/t...
http://www.gavinorland.com/religion/more...
http://www.secularism.org.uk/105572.html
However, researching the subject I have just been watching some of the religious programming on satellite. I was appalled to find childrens programming on "Genesis" which included the following:
1) Kids have been encouraged to say what prayer to god has done to them... healing wounds, making them no longer 'allergic' to tomatoes and cherries...??
2) Children were told bad things happen in life because otherwise "people go floppy like trees that aren't in the wind".
3) A Parent was telling his son how before religion he was an immoral, greedy man who used to drink. No examples of moral, selfless non-believers there.
4) Describing non-believers as "me-wants monster" and believers as "god-wants warrior". Yay that's just what we want more extremists willing to do god's will as a warrior.
This was childrens' programming! GAHH!
I do hope BBC coverage isn't similar to this. On balance if better quality BBC broadcasting cuts out some of the market for these channels that may justify their existence. However, that budget should include programming of other groups such as secular views without an agenda constrained by a religious boss.
"Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion.
In practice, our commitment to impartiality means:
• we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented.
• we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects.
Impartiality in series
Programmes dealing with widely disparate issues from one programme to the next but also clearly linked as a strand with a common title. These should normally achieve impartiality within individual programmes, or across two or three editorially linked programmes, rather than across the strand as a whole.
We can not achieve impartiality in this context by ensuring other views will be heard on other services".
"and the harm done in the name of religion is explored."
I've replied expressing my dissatisfaction at the inadequacy of his response.
Combine this with the refusal of the BBC to reconsider its initial reaction to the Gaza appeal and one begins to feel that there is a certain arrogance within the Corporation.
Contemptuous may be more apposite.
Lawrie Scott
I'm disappointed then that he appears to be giving up. He writes "...by the way we have been ignored, that I just don’t feel like it any more."
Has Gavin been leaned on by the same people who are leaning on Mark Damazer?
While complaining to the BBC Trust is a good thing to do I can't imagine that it is going to have any effect.
Anyone want to help me start up a "Secular Thought for the Day" website?
Any other ideas for action?
Please give me your support: http://www.pledgebank.com/SecularTFTD I need at least 30 people to get it started.
-----------------------------------
Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'Thought for the Day'.
We appreciate that you unhappy that the programme does not include non-religious thinkers. We also note that you've read Mark Damazer's online explanation but still feel that it contravenes our policy on impartiality.
It's always good to receive correspondence from listeners, and to be challenged by it. 'Thought for the Day' is set within the 'Today' programme, and has the remit of commenting from a religious perspective on a current news issue. It follows therefore that it is supposed to say something of substance, and that its contributors - speaking from a variety of distinctive faith positions - can stimulate, challenge, provoke, irritate, and sometimes comfort.
There are 360 Thoughts a year, and 30 or more contributors, from many faiths and many denominations - and a balance of view is maintained over a period rather than within every script.
However, we do acknowledge your concerns and we'd like to assure you that we've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Finally, I've attached an invitation from the Head of Audience Services asking you to participate in our survey. We would welcome your views on the service you have received.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards
Jonathan Carberry
BBC Complaints
Aside from contacting the Trust, another thing people might be able to do has been suggested by David Solomon. He says:
"What about an email to all the present speakers on this slot asking them to
support the inclusion of secular spakers as well as religious speakers, or alternatively, changing its name to "Religious Thought for Today"? My guess
is that many of them are fair-minded people who would be supportive."
If you can find them, you could write to them protesting.
Incidentally, on its webpage, the Religious and Ethics Department classifies atheism as a "religion" which further weakens their position.
http://quedula.blogspot.com/2009/01/bbc-...
If we all get palmed off by the BBC Trust in the same way that we were by Mark Damazer then we will have ever stronger grounds for complaint.
If we just give up and go away then we are allowing the BBC to continue discriminating against secular speakers in their choice of TFTD contributors.
The article by Michael Brooks in this week's New Scientist, called "Natural Born Believers", argues that humans are primed for supernatural thinking and that disbelief is therefore hard to achieve. Those that have made this leap must surely have useful insights into our daily affairs, that belong on TFTD!
http://afterthoughts.crowth.net/theyre-r...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio4/
The first "thought" will be posted at about 08:00 on Wednesday February 18th. I haven't decided yet which submission will be first, but every one I've received so far has been excellent, and every one of them deserves to be the first post.
So, between now and Wednesday please let as many people as you can know about this site. Blog about it, talk about it, write to your local paper about it. Spread the word. And of course remind people of the purpose behind it: to demonstrate to the BBC that a Secular Thought for the Day is just as valid, if not more so, than the faith-oriented intermissions on Radio 4's Today programme.
And if you haven't signed up to do your bit for this site then there is still time. The pledge is at http://www.pledgebank.org/SecularTFTD