So, the original motion was:
‘That this Synod call upon the BBC and Ofcom to explain why British television, which was once exemplary in its coverage of religious and ethical issues, now marginalizes the few such programmes which remain and completely ignored the Christian significance of Good Friday 2009.’

(http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/pmm/#TV)

…which is strictly an attack on ‘British television’ – the BBC are asked to explain themselves on their own behalf as they regulate themselves, and Ofcom are supposed to speak on behalf of the other PSBs since they regulate them (and enforce PSB requirements).

Now this is obvisouly a bit of a bonkers motion – that’s kind of what the General Synod is for, and Private Member’s Motions in particular. The Bishop of Manchester, probably wearily conscious of the ensuing BBC-bashing headline that the motion would probably generate in the current hostile climate for the Beeb, saw fit to propose an amendment, which was the motion which passed:

‘That this Synod

(a) express its appreciation of the vital role played by those engaged in communicating religious belief and practice through the media, at a time of changes within the industry; and

(b) express its deep concern about the overall reduction in religious broadcasting across British television in recent years, and call upon mainstream broadcasters to nurture and develop the expertise to create and commission high quality religious content across the full range of their output, particularly material that imaginatively marks major festivals and portrays acts of worship.’

(http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/gsfeb100210am.html)

Note well: no mention of the BBC. Now, cut to the first line of the NSS media release:

‘Church of England claims that the BBC is sidelining religious broadcasting are untrue and self-serving, says the National Secular Society.’

(http://www.secularism.org.uk/bbc-must-not-become-an-evangelic.html)

So the context is the NSS druming up sensationalist stories with a tenuous (at best) link to the facts.

No-one wants more Songs of Praise: it’s dull. But take a look at the TV listings this week and honestly assess the relative merits and dismerits of The Bible: A History against Snog, Marry, Avoid…

Anyway, I’m not so bothered about whether the NSS thinks there should be less religious TV programming, that’s fine. But I am bothered by Dan’s assertion here:

‘I think the point, really, is that you would expect religious programming in line with what the market wants. However, it seems there are attempts from some quarters to subvert the market, and that’s what the NSS is presumably objecting to.’

Ah, what the market wants, and the attempt to subvert it. The reification of the market is a plague of our age, but at least it holds up as a metaphor for some of the activities it is used to describe (like transactions in financial markets…) but in the world of broadcasting it is nonsense. Broadcasting operates as an oligopoly in most countries, including this one. The people who get to choose our programming are, in the end, channel controllers and their employers. The Public Service Broadcasting requirement is there to address this state of affairs (market failure if you will). The PSB requirements and the BBC’s public service remit are the only bits of broadcasting output that you or I get any notional say in through the political process. And it is that process which the NSS is aiming to influence here, I don’t think it’s trying to defend free-market ideology – I doubt that if there was a sudden mass outpouring of support for the Rabbi Lionel Blue that the NSS would be arguing for the market to deliver more religious programming to meet the demand.

Some other points to Dan’s other points:

‘If the average viewer watches 2.7 hours of the total 285 hours of religious programming, then that amounts to 0.9% of transmitted religious output. Looks like an oversupply to me.’

Compared to what? What was the average viewing hours for Big Brother (not a rhetorical question, I was wondering if you knew)? The point is this doesn’t prove anything special about religious output unless you compare it with norms for other strands of programming.

‘Although spending on religious programmes has been cut, it hasn’t been cut by as much as Children’s programming (48% since 2004).’

My understanding is that Children’s programming costs have gone down for the BBC in particular as BBC Worldwide has offset more costs against revenue from selling production abroad (not an option for much religious output). Still, you’re right to draw attention to a significant decine in spend on another area of public service programming.

‘It should also be noted that although most broadcasters did reduce religious output (in the case of ITV because quotas were removed), the BBC increased output from 86 hours in 2004 to 109 hours in 2008. And interestingly, the average viewer watches as many BBC1 hours of religious programming in 2008 as they did in 2004.’

Again, more figures please. This statement doesn’t have any impact if you aren’t able to compare the figures to other strands. As digital has taken off since 2004, all of the old broadcasters are suffering a decline in absolute viewing figures, yet they have more time they have to fill on more digital channels.

‘Religious programming in peak time (granted a very small part of total output) was actually at 65 hours in 2004, hit a peak of 83 hours in 2005, and is now at 69 hours.’

Dunno what to make of that, other than output isn’t ever the same from year to year.

‘However what we don’t seem to have is any idea of what the averages mean. Do most people really watch 2.7 hours, or do most people watch none of it and a smaller number watch most of it?’

Ah, now this is a good point, but it doesn’t say anything particular about religious programming. I does say something about viewing and listening figures: they are a very crude measure of programming.

I don’t understand how the NSS end up sounding so shrill about these things – if they focussed their energies on getting Bishops out of Parliament and promoting a positive image for secular humanists I think they’d be doing a far greater service. As they are, they sound censorious and cranky, as I think this episode illustrates.

I think you’ve misrepresented the NSS.

You omit the context to the NSS statement, which was an attack on the BBC by Anglicans. The NSS point out that the BBC is actually broadcasting more religious programmes than it is committed to. Yet such programmes are not popular.

I think the point, really, is that you would expect religious programming in line with what the market wants. However, it seems there are attempts from some quarters to subvert the market, and that’s what the NSS is presumably objecting to.

A few other points:

If the average viewer watches 2.7 hours of the total 285 hours of religious programming, then that amounts to 0.9% of transmitted religious output. Looks like an oversupply to me.

Although spending on religious programmes has been cut, it hasn’t been cut by as much as Children’s programming (48% since 2004).

It should also be noted that although most broadcasters did reduce religious output (in the case of ITV because quotas were removed), the BBC increased output from 86 hours in 2004 to 109 hours in 2008. And interestingly, the average viewer watches as many BBC1 hours of religious programming in 2008 as they did in 2004.

Religious programming in peak time (granted a very small part of total output) was actually at 65 hours in 2004, hit a peak of 83 hours in 2005, and is now at 69 hours.

However what we don’t seem to have is any idea of what the averages mean. Do most people really watch 2.7 hours, or do most people watch none of it and a smaller number watch most of it?

Dan