Religious Programming, Secularism and Bad Arguments
The National Secular Society put out an alarming press release last week insisting that the “BBC must not become an evangelical wing of the Church of England“. Leaving aside whether the C of E now has wings, how great is this risk and how do the NSS’s arguments stack up?
Let’s look at some figures of our own first. According to last year’s Ofcom report, “[s]pend on Religion and Arts programmes has reduced by 34% and 33% respectively” since 2004. Since then, the number of broadcast hours per year dedicated to programmes classified as “religious” has fallen from 375 to 285: that’s a drop of 24%. Each of us watches an average of 2.7 hours of these programmes per year, down from 3.5 in 2004 (a 23% drop, probably not coincidentally), and “[i]ndividuals aged 65+ are much more likely to spend time viewing this genre than are younger individuals”. These are all of the statistics on religious programming in the report.
So I think it’s fair to say that in the last five years religious programming by public service broadcasters has dropped significantly, whether you look at spend, broadcast hours or viewing figures. The NSS press release ends with this paragraph:
[NSS President] Mr Sanderson said that while he accepted that the BBC had a public service remit to serve the whole community and that some religion on TV was legitimate; it should be kept in proportion. “Very few people go to church and religion is now very much a minority interest. Its presence on TV should reflect that. The BBC pours far too much of its resources into satisfying these religious demands,” he commented.
The key point here, then, is that religious programming on the BBC should be proportionate to the number of people in the UK professing a religious belief, which according to the 2001 census (the most recent data we have, AFAIK) is 76.8%. The five PSB channels brodcast around 43,800 hours of television per year: Terry Sanderson thinks 0.6% of this being used for religious programming is disproportionate, given that only three quarters of the country profess a religious belief. I grant that 2001 is a while ago now, but it’s hard to believe it’s dropped off a cliff in the last decade simply because of The God Delusion.
The problem here, of course, is that working out what’s proportionate isn’t straightforward. Clearly using 71.6% (the percentage identifying as Christian) of airtime for Songs of Praise wouldn’t be right — religious believers, like everyone else, want to watch a variety of different kinds of programme. Furthermore, the press release points out that church attendance has dropped off, although the figures are complicated, and not going to church regularly doesn’t necessarily imply not wanting to see religious programmes. The missing premise here is that if people don’t go to church they don’t deserve to get programmes made for them, just like you can’t have a BBC4 doc about Monet if you haven’t visited the Nat this year. Religion, contrary to what people like the NSS seem to think, is not just a commitment to a few well-defined metaphysical truth-claims: it’s an ethnic and cultural identity, too.
There’s really no well-established rule for what the percentage should be, although the NSS might start by using up-to-date data (not the 2005 Ofcom report), citing its sources and, most importantly, telling us what proportion it thinks is reasonable and why.
What’s odder is that their arguments are completely unrelated, so far as I can see, to their conclusion. The arguments they offer are nothing to do with this proportionality claim they’re driving towards but to do with popularity. The fact that religious programmes get few viewers is used as a reason why we should get rid of them. This rather defeats the headline claim that we should be frightened by their evangelical powers, and it doesn’t support the conclusion either. The only kind of show with poorer reach than religious programmes is the genre called “education”, and presumably Mr Sanderson thinks those shows should be canned, too.
This argument is so exceptionally poorly-constructed that I’d use it as a counterexample in a critical thinking class, were I teaching one at the moment. The whole thing is a complete non sequitur: no attempt seems to have been made to connect introduction, argument and conclusion. For an organisation that supposedly defends “scientific rationalism” this is pretty embarrassing stuff. But it does push some hot buttons for the regular readers of the NSS’s web site, and lets them know Mr Sanderson is still bravely fighting off the Sky Fairy Visigoths on their behalf.
The NSS did not say that programming should reflect demographics at all. They merely pointed out that religion is a minority interest (not the same thing as saying that religious *belief* is a minority thing), and that surveys show little value placed on religious programming.
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
Oh boy, I’m about to present a bit of a defence of the CofE (places ironic hand on God Delusion and silently pleas for forgiveness…)
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.