Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day'

[Mulder]

I listen to Radio 4 in the morning and often hear this bizarre 5 minute slot in the otherwise factual Today programme. It almost always follows the same formula. The speaker starts in a friendly, chatty way to relate an anecdote. These anecdotes are sometimes entertaining though often they are plain lame. Anyway, suddenly the anecdote is over and they are getting into religion.

There are probably many people who don't notice the end of the anecdote and the start of the religious stuff (that's clearly how it is meant to be received). To me, however, it is as shocking as hitting a brick wall! One second you are sharing an anecdote and, in the next, your brain is being assaulted with material for which there is no logic or evidence. Any link there might be between the two topics is obvious only to the speaker!

Has anyone else had this disconcerting and annoying experience? Isn't it high time that religious broadcasting was removed completely from any association with factual material?

[DrS]

Yes, I have. I developed such an aversion to it that I couldn't listen to it at all and found myself switching the thing completely off ... and then missing the news items I wanted to listen to!

[Julia]

I haven't listened to 'Thought for the Day' for years, in fact I was surprised to hear that it's still being broadcast. It's a very weird little item and can be unintentionally hilarious.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I've retuned my radio from Radio 4, because I was finding that I was always in the bathroom at precisely the time thought for the day was on. I just can't stand listening to it.

You've hit the nail on the head there, about a minute in to the speaker, all logic and reasoning just disappears and you are listening to some absurd belief system.

I believe the National Secular Society has been trying to get them to have non-religious speakers on it without success. It really is an embarassment to anyone listening to R4 for intelligent discussion to have to listen to TFTD for 2 minutes.

[Fiona]

I heard one of the high heid yins justifying the refusal to allow atheists on this spot. It seems that all broadcast material which is not religious is atheist. And therefore we have more than our fair share. Who knew?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Ah, yes! The atheists have it all their own way with the football scores. Time for some of that balance. Jolly good stuff, it is.

[Spetznatz]

Harold Pinter & His Chums™ lobbied a few years back to get some 'rational' speakers included (although this was before Mark Damazer took over as head honcho of R4).

Yup, it really ticks me off as well (especially when that blazing ball of smugness Anne Atkins is presenting it). It gets up my nose as much as the opening 'UK theme' on R4 in the morning, which, if you've ever been up that early, is followed by....'Prayer for the Day'.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Anne Atkins - hers are definately among the worst. It is just one logical fallacy after another with her.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Some Atkins bashing:

http://tygerland.net/2007/04/19/anne...-olive-branch/

[Spetznatz]

Some Atkins bashing:

http://tygerland.net/2007/04/19/anne...-olive-branch/

Thanks for that...! It still makes my blood boil reading anything to do with that sanctimonious cow.

I thought comment number 6 nailed here particularly self-satisfied little closing statement rather well.

[tkingdoll]

Hmmmmmm, I'm torn on the 'let atheists go on it' thing because I despise the notion, indeed the assertion (usually by the religious) that atheism is itself a religion or belief system. It's not, it's the lack of one.

So, it's hard to see on what grounds an atheist would speak on a religious slot.

However, it entirely depends on how Radio 4 define the slot and its purpose. If they define it as 'a slot for the philosophical musings of various religious believers' then there's little point in complaining that someone who doesn't qualify isn't allowed on it. If they define it as 'a slot for circumspection about religious belief' then it would be fairly easy to argue that a secular humanist, for example, should be allowed to speak, as that is someone who actively rejects religious belief and adopts a different philosophy. Such a lifestyle would not only be relevant, but arguably of interest to those interested in the topic of religious belief.

There isn't a definition (or indeed any content) on the official page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/progra...ht/index.shtml

But if you look at that address it is filed in the 'religion' directory of the website. Atheism, humanism, etc, are most definitely not religions. QED? No...because if we visit the 'religion' link on the menu of that very page, what is the first thing we see?

Atheism! Listed with religions, nice as you like. Make your minds up, BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/

The Atheism page doesn't make for great reading, I suspect it was written by a believer. This in particular is untrue:

This had serious ethical consequences. Western society's entire moral code was based on Judaeo-Christian ethics, and sooner or later people would realise that if they no longer believed in God, they could not live by a moral code that was based on God.

However again...all Radio 4 cares about is its listening demographic, and I daresay that particular slot is listened to by Songs of Praise fans who would abandon the station in droves if one of those heathens was allowed to speak.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

However again...all Radio 4 cares about is its listening demographic, and I daresay that particular slot is listened to by Songs of Praise fans who would abandon the station in droves if one of those heathens was allowed to speak.

I'd be happy if they just dropped it - it makes absolutely no sense in the time slot it is in.

The problem is that this is probably the most intelligent news programme on the radio all day, never mind at that particular time, so it just makes it so muh more absurd that they feel the need to fill 2 minutes with superstition and myth.

They probably do have a large Songs of Praise contingent, but they also have a large contingent of intelligent people listening because everything else is dumbed down.

[tkingdoll]

I'd be happy if they just dropped it - it makes absolutely no sense in the time slot it is in.

The problem is that this is probably the most intelligent news programme on the radio all day, never mind at that particular time, so it just makes it so muh more absurd that they feel the need to fill 2 minutes with superstition and myth.

They probably do have a large Songs of Praise contingent, but they also have a large contingent of intelligent people listening because everything else is dumbed down.

I suspect they can't win this one, it's somewhat of a sacred cow. It only takes one 'offended' religious person to make a storm in a teacup. See the USA and the 'war on Christmas' for details. Who wants to be the radio boss to pull the damn thing and upset all the vicars?

Although I often say if skeptics had half the righteous indignation of offended believers, we'd get a lot more media coverage.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Some Atkins bashing:

http://tygerland.net/2007/04/19/anne...-olive-branch/

Well, she wanted to be a big fish in a small barrel.