Religions > Atheism > Atheist News: Ofcom complaint against Dawkins by Xtian wanker Detroyed utterly.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michael Gray" |
| Date: |
06 Jun 2006 06:28:28 AM |
| Object: |
Atheist News: Ofcom complaint against Dawkins by Xtian wanker Detroyed utterly. |
www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb34/issue61.pdf
"Ofcom broadcast bulletin 61
30 May 2006
:
10
The Root of All Evil?
Channel 4, 9 January 2006 & 16 January 2006; 20:00
Introduction
This was a short series of two programmes presented by Professor
Richard Dawkins challenging, what he described as, “a process of
non-thinking faith”. In the programmes he questioned why militant
faith appeared to him to be on the increase and why religious people
were allowed to teach their children their beliefs from an early age.
Over the two programmes, 23 viewers complained to Ofcom.
In summary, the complainants considered that the programme:
a) showed a negative portrayal of religious beliefs and called
religious faith “a virus”, and that this was both offensive and
harmful;
b) contained inflammatory comments, slanderous remarks and atheist
propaganda, which resulted in possible incitement to religious hatred;
c) allowed an “ill-informed” presenter to treat religion with
“ridicule and scorn”, and misrepresented religious views, which -
along with disingenuous editing - offered no opportunity for debate.
As there was no balancing programme on the same service, this resulted
in an approach to the religious matters being explored that was not
responsible;
d) allowed the presenter to air bigoted, intolerant, biased and
anti-religious views;
e) attempted to promote religious (i.e. atheist) views by stealth;
f) generally contravened Ofcom’s rules on due impartiality and due
accuracy; and
g) focused on the behaviour and beliefs of “religious extremists”,
with little reference to moderate/mainstream religious belief and
practice, and that therefore this was misleading;
The issues raised by the complainants related to a number of
Broadcasting Code rules. We asked Channel 4 to respond to these
complaints but with particular reference to the following rules:
4.1 Broadcasters must exercise the proper degree of responsibility
with respect to the content of programmes which are religious
programmes.
4.2 The religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular
religion or religious denomination must not be subject to abusive
treatment.
Channel 4 said that the two programmes were a polemic series. It
described Professor Dawkins as “…one of the foremost evolutionary
scientists. He had gained prominence as a ‘professional atheist’ and
was an ambassador for the rationality of science”.
With reference to Rule 4.1, Channel 4 was confident that the proper
degree of responsibility with respect to the content was demonstrated,
in that the proposed content was considered at a high editorial level
and with advice from a lawyer. With
reference to Rule 4.2, the broadcaster said that it was also confident
that the religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a
particular religion were not subject to abusive treatment.
In support of this, Channel 4 said:
• The question mark in the title would have alerted viewers to the
fact that the programmes would be questioning religion. The
announcements preceding both programmes also made this clear:
“An Oxford professor who says God is fiction, join the debate next on
4…
we should all reject all religions. Radical, controversial and the
debate right now on 4…”
“Is religion the root of all evil? A virus particularly affecting the
young?... ‘Darwin’s Rottweiler’ Richard Dawkins expresses concern over
the virus of faith in The Root of all Evil”
• Richard Dawkins made clear the perspective he was coming from, and
that what he was going to say was what he thought. Therefore the
editorial content of the programme was transparently spelt out for the
viewer.
• It was essential that Channel 4 should broadcast programmes that
offered alternative perspectives to mainstream thought. Ofcom’s
research (Religious Programmes: a report of the key findings of a
qualitative research study, May 2005) demonstrated that people were
willing to receive programmes that espoused differing views. Of the
882 viewers responses about the programmes to Channel 4 directly, more
than half praised the series as a genuine example of freedom of
expression.
• The presenter was not allowed to espouse his views in a completely
biased and unchallenged manner. He was challenged by other religious
contributors throughout the series. These included the pastor of a
12,000 strong congregation in Colorado Springs, a Jewish convert to
Islam, an orthodox rabbi, the teacher of an Accelerated Christian
Education (ACE) school and an Anglican Bishop. In Channel 4’s view, he
was not disrespectful of any contributor espousing faith, nor did he
seek to ridicule or vilify any of the religions.
• The presenter was not allowed to espouse his views in a completely
biased and unchallenged manner. However, polemic or authored films
are, by their very nature, biased as they are clearly representing the
opinion of the author.
However this is acceptable under the Broadcasting Code, provided this
type of film is contextualised and signposted. Broadcasting a polemic
view is integral to both the Channel 4 remit and to the right to both
freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression
(European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 9 and 10).
• Richard Dawkins’ views were challenging and provocative but not
abusive.
Channel 4 said that to disagree with conventional thought did not, in
itself, make an abuse of that thought.
The broadcaster, in its response, also addressed issues related to
whether it had applied generally accepted standards to the programmes
(Rule 2.3). Channel 4 pointed out that it was satisfied that the
series was clearly signposted as a polemic.
Richard Dawkins regularly used expressions such as “I think” or “As
far as I am concerned” and the programmes were preceded by
presentation announcements about the content. The broadcaster had also
taken into account the potential audience and likely expectation of
that audience tuning in to such a series, broadcast in prime time on a
minority channel.
Broadcasters have the right to impart information and ideas and
viewers have a right to receive them as long as the Code is complied
with. We considered the programmes in the light of: the complaints;
the comments from Channel 4; and the relevant provisions of the
Broadcasting Code, as set out below, which were set in accordance with
our statutory duties under section 319 of the Communications Act 2003.
Section 3(2) (e) of the Communications Act 2003 also requires Ofcom to
apply standards:
”that provide adequate protection to members of the public from the
inclusion of offensive and harmful material”, but in doing so we
should have regard to – as much as it appears to be relevant – to the
manner that, “best guarantees an appropriate level of freedom of
expression”. (section 3(4)(g))
As the Broadcasting Code sets out, broadcasters may make programmes
about any issue they choose, so long as the material complies with the
Code and the law.
Overall, these programmes were serious documentaries, questioning the
validity of religion. In such areas as political and religious debate,
it is essential that broadcasters and viewers have as much freedom of
expression as is compatible with the law, to explore ideas. The
programmes were clearly authored and the presenter had every right to
challenge orthodox religion so long as there was a “proper degree of
responsibility” and people’s religious views were not subject to
“abusive treatment”.
a) As with all programmes, the broadcasters must ensure that they
apply “generally accepted standards” and that material, which may
cause offence, is justified by the context (Rule 2.3).
The Code gives a meaning for context, which includes, but is not
limited to:
“the editorial content of the series; the service on which the
material is broadcast; ...the degree of harm or offence likely to be
caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of material in
programmes of a particular description; the likely size and
composition of the potential audience and likely expectation of the
audience; and the extent to which the nature of the content can be
brought to the attention of the potential audience for example by
giving information...”
In considering context we therefore took into account those matters
set out above.
When considering the service on which this series was broadcast we
took into account Channel 4’s remit (or purpose) which requires it,
amongst other things, to:
“encourage innovation and experiment in the form and content of
programmes and generally to give the channel a distinctive character
of its own“.
Furthermore, this was an authored programme about religious faith
presented by Professor Dawkins who has a reputation as a noted
atheist. This was made clear from the start and throughout both
programmes. Professor Dawkins regularly used expressions such as “I
believe (that)…” and “I think (that)…” signalling the polemic nature
of these programmes. With this in mind - and given Channel 4’s general
reputation – we concluded that such a challenging and provocative
series was unlikely to exceed the likely expectation of viewers to
Channel 4.
For those viewers of Channel 4 who were unaware of Professor Dawkin’s
reputation, we recognised that the series title and the explicit
presentation information given before both programmes made it clear
that this was a polemic which challenged religious faith.
From the complaints received, it is clear that viewers were able to
engage with the challenging material, but did not necessarily accept
the conclusions of Professor Dawkins. However, this was not, in this
case, a reason for finding that the programme breached the
requirements of the Code. The degree of offence likely to be caused
from content with a series which is presented by a noted atheist and
which is clearly signalled by the title and before and during the
series as a polemic which questions religious faith and is within the
likely expectation of the viewers for that service and series must be
considerably reduced. Taking this context into account we did not
consider that the programmes had breached generally accepted standards
as set out in rule 2.3 of the Code:
b) Some complainants stated that, in their opinion, the programme
would incite religious hatred. We, therefore, considered whether the
programmes had breached Rule 3.1:
Rule 3.1: “Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of
crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or
radio services.”
We questioned whether Richard Dawkins’ opinions (for example, that
religion was “divisive and dangerous”, or that it “acted like a
virus”) in any way encouraged or incited the commission of crime or
could lead to disorder, as suggested by some complainants.
We appreciate that for some, such opinions may cause offence. However,
the programmes contained no calls, direct or implied, to action -
militant or otherwise - towards a particular religion or to
individuals or communities. The series was about ideas and religious
philosophy and so did not, in our view, amount to the encouragement or
incitement of the commission of crime or were likely to lead to
disorder.
c) Section Four of the Code deals with religious programmes. The Code
sets out that a religious programme is a programme which deals with
matters of religion as the central subject, or as a significant part,
of the programme. The subject-matter of this series placed it within
this definition.
We considered the programmes in the light of Rule 4.1:
Rule 4.1: “Broadcasters must exercise the proper degree of
responsibility with respect to the content of programmes which are
religious programmes”.
We therefore considered whether Channel 4 had exercised the proper
degree of responsibility in using Professor Dawkins as a presenter in
a series which expressed his personal views on religion in the
challenging way in which they were expressed.
There are many programmes on the terrestrial channels alone that
approach religion from a believer’s perspective. Channel 4, as it
pointed out in its response, has a duty to present alternative
perspectives – as long as they do so with a proper degree of
responsibility. Viewers should also be able to see matters of religion
and belief discussed from a non-believer’s perspective.
We considered whether, notwithstanding the right to provide such
programmes, the broadcaster had applied the proper degree of
responsibility towards the content of the programme. In considering
this we looked at what “the proper degree of responsibility”, in the
specific context of a polemic in favour of atheism and opposed to
religious faith and expressly designed to generate and/or contribute
to debate, meant. We noted that in this case Channel 4 ensured that:
- the audience was given clear information as to what they were about
to watch;
- the views of the presenter were identified clearly as his/her
opinion;
- that those views were open to challenge; and
- opposing opinions to the presenter’s were aired.
These actions set the material in context. In our view, the content of
the programme was treated with responsibility and the series was
therefore not in breach of Rule 4.1 of the Code.
d) We also considered Rule 4.2;
Rule 4.2: “The religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a
particular religion or religious denomination must not be subject to
abusive treatment.” In considering whether Professor Dawkins’ polemic
amounted to abusive treatment of a particular religion or religious
denomination - as implied by the complaints - we again took into
account that his comments were made in the context of a polemic on
Channel 4 by a noted atheist and rationalist on the subject of
religious faith in a clearly signalled and titled series. Even so, it
is important that the material does not amount to abusive treatment.
In both programmes Professor Dawkins addressed specific religions or
denominations – in particular Catholicism, Judaism, Conservative
Evangelicalism and Islam. However the overall theme of the programmes
was critical of religious belief generally. The criticisms of religion
by Professor Dawkins did not use offensive language or espouse
intolerance, violence or militant actions against those with religious
beliefs, and in our opinion, did not amount to abuse. Representatives
of the various faiths concerned were also interviewed and put their
own perspectives. For example Professor Dawkins’ sceptical view of
Lourdes and the Catholic Church was countered by a Catholic priest.
In the particular context of a polemical programme, challenging
comments, similar to those found in political debate, are likely to be
aired. Whilst accepting that such remarks would be potentially
offensive to some people, we considered that these did not amount to
the kind of abusive treatment set out in Rule 4.2.
e) We also considered Rule 4.4.
Rule 4.4: “Religious programmes must not seek to promote religious
views or beliefs by stealth”.
This rule concerns programming that purports to be one thing, but
ultimately intends to acquire converts to a belief-system by not
revealing its true intention. The viewpoint of the series Root of All
Evil was clear and identifiably atheist from the outset. Atheism, by
definition, is not a 'religion' and so does not fall under this
particular category. This series was not in breach of Rule 4.4
f) Some complainants stated that the issues in the programme were not
addressed with due impartiality and accuracy. However, the requirement
for due accuracy and impartiality relates solely to news. Outside of
news, only programmes dealing with matters of political or industrial
controversy and matters relating to current public policy are required
to maintain “due impartiality”. Therefore the requirements for due
accuracy and impartiality (as set out in Section Five of the Code) are
not applicable to these programmes overall.
To that extent, this series did not generally fall under this Section
of the Code.
But during the sequence exploring Accelerated Christian Education
(ACE) the programme touched on a matter relating to current public
policy i.e. Faith Schools. However, relevant Christians involved in
this area of educational policy were interviewed at this point and
challenged Professor Dawkins’ views. The requirements of due
impartiality on this matter was met within the programme.
g) Complainants were concerned that the programmes focused on the
beliefs and behaviour of “religious extremists” and so were
misleading. We considered Rule 2.2.
Rule 2.2 Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters
must not materially mislead the audience.
The programmes reflected on a range of views, including those of the
Bishop of Oxford, and did not mislead by presenting extreme views as
moderate views. The balance of views within the programme was an
editorial decision for Channel 4 as the programmes were not dealing
with matters set out in Section Five. The programmes were not
therefore in breach of Rule 2.2.
Taking all the above into account we do not believe the series was in
breach of the Code."
"Not in Breach"
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Apprentice Thumbscrew Oiler.
.
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist News: Ofcom complaint against Dawkins by Xtian wanker Detroyed utterly. |
06 Jun 2006 08:34:57 AM |
|
|
In article <kkpa82pth2g9cq7pk9i7eurjkp5d0pfn0f@4ax.com>,
fleetg@newsguy.spam.com says...
The
announcements preceding both programmes also made this clear
They also ran a rebuttal by a theist nitwit after the program.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist News: Ofcom complaint against Dawkins by Xtian wanker Detroyed utterly. |
06 Jun 2006 09:13:27 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 07:34:57 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <MPG.1eef32671c8862a0989a01@news.readfreenews.net>
In article <kkpa82pth2g9cq7pk9i7eurjkp5d0pfn0f@4ax.com>,
fleetg@newsguy.spam.com says...
The
announcements preceding both programmes also made this clear
They also ran a rebuttal by a theist nitwit after the program.
Would that be Tony Blair, MP, PM. (Member for Washington DC)?
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Apprentice Thumbscrew Oiler.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist News: Ofcom complaint against Dawkins by Xtian wanker Detroyed utterly. |
06 Jun 2006 07:22:45 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb34/issue61.pdf
"Ofcom broadcast bulletin 61
30 May 2006
:
10
The Root of All Evil?
Channel 4, 9 January 2006 & 16 January 2006; 20:00
Introduction
This was a short series of two programmes presented by Professor
Richard Dawkins challenging, what he described as, "a process of
non-thinking faith". In the programmes he questioned why militant
faith appeared to him to be on the increase and why religious people
were allowed to teach their children their beliefs from an early age.
Over the two programmes, 23 viewers complained to Ofcom.
Oh dear! 23 complaints! Stephen Green must have had a broken dialling
finger.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist News: Ofcom complaint against Dawkins by Xtian wanker Detroyed utterly. |
06 Jun 2006 09:12:15 AM |
|
|
On 6 Jun 2006 05:22:45 -0700, "Pastor Kutchie"
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1149596565.412327.183700@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb34/issue61.pdf
"Ofcom broadcast bulletin 61
30 May 2006
:
10
The Root of All Evil?
Channel 4, 9 January 2006 & 16 January 2006; 20:00
Introduction
This was a short series of two programmes presented by Professor
Richard Dawkins challenging, what he described as, "a process of
non-thinking faith". In the programmes he questioned why militant
faith appeared to him to be on the increase and why religious people
were allowed to teach their children their beliefs from an early age.
Over the two programmes, 23 viewers complained to Ofcom.
Oh dear! 23 complaints! Stephen Green must have had a broken dialling
finger.
This was to Ofcom, not the Beeb, which has an asbestos switchboard for
such programs!
(Steven Green, Steven Green. Nope don't think I recall the name. Any
relation to Mary Whitehouse?)
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Apprentice Thumbscrew Oiler.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist News: Ofcom complaint against Dawkins by Xtian wanker Detroyed utterly. |
06 Jun 2006 03:51:02 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 6 Jun 2006 05:22:45 -0700, "Pastor Kutchie"
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1149596565.412327.183700@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb34/issue61.pdf
"Ofcom broadcast bulletin 61
30 May 2006
:
10
The Root of All Evil?
Channel 4, 9 January 2006 & 16 January 2006; 20:00
Introduction
This was a short series of two programmes presented by Professor
Richard Dawkins challenging, what he described as, "a process of
non-thinking faith". In the programmes he questioned why militant
faith appeared to him to be on the increase and why religious people
were allowed to teach their children their beliefs from an early age.
Over the two programmes, 23 viewers complained to Ofcom.
Oh dear! 23 complaints! Stephen Green must have had a broken dialling
finger.
This was to Ofcom, not the Beeb, which has an asbestos switchboard for
such programs!
(Steven Green, Steven Green. Nope don't think I recall the name. Any
relation to Mary Whitehouse?)
Here's his website:
www.christianvoice.org.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist News: Ofcom complaint against Dawkins by Xtian wanker Detroyed utterly. |
06 Jun 2006 06:49:55 PM |
|
|
On 6 Jun 2006 13:51:02 -0700, "Pastor Kutchie"
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1149627062.064418.212860@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On 6 Jun 2006 05:22:45 -0700, "Pastor Kutchie"
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1149596565.412327.183700@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb34/issue61.pdf
"Ofcom broadcast bulletin 61
30 May 2006
:
10
The Root of All Evil?
Channel 4, 9 January 2006 & 16 January 2006; 20:00
Introduction
This was a short series of two programmes presented by Professor
Richard Dawkins challenging, what he described as, "a process of
non-thinking faith". In the programmes he questioned why militant
faith appeared to him to be on the increase and why religious people
were allowed to teach their children their beliefs from an early age.
Over the two programmes, 23 viewers complained to Ofcom.
Oh dear! 23 complaints! Stephen Green must have had a broken dialling
finger.
This was to Ofcom, not the Beeb, which has an asbestos switchboard for
such programs!
(Steven Green, Steven Green. Nope don't think I recall the name. Any
relation to Mary Whitehouse?)
Here's his website:
www.christianvoice.org.uk
Urk!!
Vomit alert.
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Apprentice Thumbscrew Oiler.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
