nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme

Proposition are obfuscating attacks on the right to a free expression of religious faith, free of ridicule or threat for doing so behind the BBCs obligation to be fair. This right is established in national and international law where it is not treated as comparable to what someone might find interesting as part of the nights viewing. The latter is clearly trivial by comparison to the former.  Those leading the protests have been quite clear that they have no objection to free speech and discussing, and disagreeing with, various religious themes – so long as that is done in a respectful manner. It was offensive that it had been shown at the National Theatre and then in Cambridge; for it to be broadcast on the de facto ‘flag carrier’ of British broadcasting is simply unfair to the many Christian licence fee payers who help fund the BBC’s output [i] .  [i] The Christian Voice. Statement from their website in 2005.

Many people find the views expressed by much of the church offensive, those views are given airtime, a public service broadcaster should provide a level playing field for ideas.  The role of a public service broadcaster, especially one of the stature of the BBC, is to provide a portal for ideas from all perspectives. There are many who take either irritation or offence at the idea that the Corporation devotes a disproportionate time and resources to what, in modern Britain, is a strictly minority interest [i] with fewer than seven per cent of people regularly attending religious worship.  Many perceive commonly held positions in the mainstream churches – let alone more extreme sects – to be offensive or reactionary and, in some cases, a cover for homophobic, illiberal or sexist opinions.  If religious opinion is to be granted this airtime for the benefit of a small, if vocal, minority then it seems both unfair and unprofessional for that broadcaster to be constrained by that groups views in relation to the rest of its output.  The BBC, like most major broadcasters, meets the challenge of divergent or conflicting views by providing some output that is considered likely to be of interest to each viewpoint.  [i] National Secular Society. Press Release: “BBC Must Not Become the Evangelical Wing of the Church of England.” 9 February 2010.

It is wrong to suggest that the BBC has any duty on account of its relative funding freedom to give a platform to controversial works of art. On the contrary the BBC has a higher obligation to viewers not to offend them because they are also licence payers. Highlighting the BBC’s global audience also has little meaning as the global audience did not all have the opportunity to watch the programme – the numbers are global and include radio. The 1,500 protesters outside BBC studios was a small slice of the tens of thousands who voiced their protest in one form or another. These protests took place outside productions around the world involving Christians from many walks of life as well as the numerous complaints. However the BBC, dominated by an out of touch urban elite, clearly had little interest in the huge amount of offence that it had caused.

This was a piece of art, advertised and described as such, those likely to be offended were quite welcome not to watch it.  The allegation made by those who objected to the airing of this show was that it was blasphemous. There were also objections to the graphic nature of the language and sexual reference. It seems staggeringly unlikely that 55,000 [i] people had accidently been watching opera on BBC 2 having failed to watch any of the warnings in advance or the fairly extensive media discussion in advance of the broadcast.  Therefore, those who watched it made a choice to do so – and it seems reasonable to consider that an informed choice. A free society is predicated on the fact that adults have the right to make choices. In turn that is based on the shared understanding that those choices have consequences; which may, potentially, cause some degree of harm to the person making that choice. Having been warned that watching the broadcast may cause them offence, viewers still chose to and some, it seems, were duly offended.  It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that the shock was either feigned or a matter of pretence. Which leaves the matter of blasphemy; an offence against a belief system. There was no secret that religious issues were likely to feature in the broadcast and no secret was made of the fact that those views were likely to be both critical and forthright. Tuning in, specifically to be offended by something that the viewer had been warned they might find offensive seems perverse.  By contrast, art lovers who wished to see the production - which had received four Lawrence Olivier Awards among other tributes – had the opportunity to experience a theatrical work they would have had a limited opportunity to witness had it not been broadcast nationally.  It would be bizarre to disadvantage those who wanted to – and actually did – see the performance (about 1.7 million [ii] )because of the views of those who neither wanted to see it or refused to do so  [i] Wikipedia entry: “Jerry Springer: The Opera”  [ii] BBC News Website. “Group to Act Over singer Opera.” 10 January 2005.

As Proposition suggest, the broadcast had been widely discussed in the media before the event and there had been reviews of the stage performance as well as coverage of the subsequent awards. It cannot have come as a huge surprise that this would attract attention from, and cause great offence to, many people with an interest in the popular portrayal of religion. The trick of deliberately stoking allegations of blasphemy and obscenity to improve the ratings of a fairly obscure art form is as old as it is contemptible.  Equally there is a secondary level of impact in terms of how the deep beliefs of people of faith will be represented to those who choose to watch and are not offended. They are hardly likely to have their perceptions of those beliefs enhanced by seeing matters portrayed in this way. There is, therefore, the risk that the interaction between those two groups will be effected in a deleterious way.

There is clearly a different threshold between the questions “do I like soap operas?” and “do I appreciate having my beliefs excoriated on national TV?” The difficulty here is that many who took offence saw the programme as a direct attack on themselves personally, their beliefs and the others who shared their faith.

There is a duty for a broadcaster that is not dependent on either commercial or state funding to give a platform to controversial works of art.  The BBC is in an unusual position, simply because of its funding structure, to promote new or challenging works of art. The licence fee means that it is freed of many of the pressures brought to bear by either commercial or political masters. Although it has never taken that to mean it has a carte blanche, it does allow for opportunities simply not available to many broadcasters in terms showcasing new works of art and encouraging creative development.  The BBC’s global audience in 2007 was 233 million [i] . That audience provides some context for the 1,500 who actively protested this particular broadcast.  It seems reasonable to suggest that many of those millions follow the BBC because they trust the Corporation’s approach of providing the widest possible range of output and opinion. For such an organisation to capitulate to a prudish group – who were outside BBC venues at the time so couldn’t have seen the broadcast – would be a huge betrayal of that trust.  [i] BBC News Website. “BBC Global Audience Hits New High”. 21 May 2007.

It is simply impractical for a major international broadcaster to hand out powers of veto to small sectional interests.  The BBC would quickly be left with a content either devoid of interest or of content were it to allow such a veto to become normative. Especially were it, as appears to be the case here, to offer such a veto to people who didn’t watch the programme.  As a result, although some of the responsibility for avoiding offence lies with the broadcaster at least an equal share must lie with the viewer. Even at the more basic level of ‘will I like this’, responsibility lies with both parties. The BBC undertakes to provide a diverse range of programming so that there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming majority should be able to find something of interest but does so on the assumption that people will watch what they find interesting.  Likewise, it is reasonable to assume that people will not go out of their way to watch things that they already expect to find offensive.

The BBC may be unusual but it is designed to fulfill particular functions. The very reason for its existence is to provide a platform for the free expression of a wide range of views, tailored to a wide range of viewers. Within that context, it cannot be expected that everyone will feel equally comfortable with every programme – indeed if that were the case, they would be breaching their own commitments to reflect diverse, often special, interests. There are other services and broadcasters who receive support from the licence fee, so those who wish to view elsewhere are not throwing away their investment. [i]  [i] Holmwood, Leigh et al., ‘Digital Britain: BBC licence fee to help fund broadband and ITV local news’, the Guardian, 16 June 2009.

BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, who is himself a practising Christian, said that he found ‘nothing blasphemous’ about the programme [i] . The protests were small and overwhelmingly organised by one group. There is simply no case for a right not to be offended by something you’ve seen; far less for something you haven’t. This would equally apply if the programme had been offensive to some Muslims as it does to a programme that is offensive to some Christians.  [i] BBC News Website. “Protests as BBC Screens Springer”. 10 January 2005.

Tens of thousands of licence fee payers objected to this, ultimately they are the BBC’s key stakeholder and that view is worthy of respect.  As an institution, the BBC may like to position itself as a global media brand but that doesn’t alter the fact that it is funded by, and chartered to serve, the British population. The whole British population. That combination – paying the pipers and calling the tune – would suggest that the corporation might be sensitive to that group.  If 50,000 to 60,000 users of any other brand registered their protest or objection to a product put forward by that brand, it would cause chaos, resignations, sackings and a rethink of whatever strategy had caused the problem in the first place.  In the case of the BBC, it caused a few slightly dismissive comments from senior managers, one editor resigned because he felt that the protesters comments were not being taken seriously and the organisation continued as though nothing had happened.  The sheer arrogance required for that response beggars belief. The BBC, as a public institution has a duty of care that might be thought of as greater than that of a private corporation. And yet it gave the impression of acting like it was just one of the other venues who had staged the opera. There is clearly a difference between a theatre that I choose to attend or not – and choose whether to support financially – and the national broadcaster which is beamed into people’s living room paid for by a compulsory licence fee.

Why should those who foot the bill have chunks of airtime from which they are, effectively, excluded.  How can it be okay for a broadcaster, funded by a compulsory levy on anyone who owns a television, to willingly produce programmes they know will cause offence to that consumer?  The charge of blasphemy is far more than saying ‘I didn’t enjoy this’ or ‘not my kind of show’, it is a deeply held belief that what has been said is a deliberate and willful attack on values and beliefs that the viewer holds sacred and fundamental to who they are.  All major broadcasters, including the BBC, routinely test shows and monitor audience response and yet, in this particular regard, feel relaxed about producing material that certain viewers would consider it not only uncomfortable but sinful to watch. By definition, those viewers cannot watch those shows or, quite probably, that station and yet they are still expected to pay for it.  Even if a British viewer were to choose never to watch the BBC again because of the offence caused by programmes such as Jerry Springer: The Opera, they would still be paying the salaries of those who had caused the offence in the first place. That cannot be reasonable by any standard.

If this work had been an attack on Mohammed it would never have been broadcast, the BBC is applying double standards.  A week before the broadcast of the opera, protest by Sikhs in Birmingham about the play Bezthi by the Birmingham Rep, brought the show to a close. Like many organisations, the BBC panics when it believes it has caused offence to some religions and yet Christianity – by far the world’s most populous and diverse creed [i] - is routinely ignored or expected to ‘take it on the chin.  Christian symbols and imagery are routinely profaned by major broadcasters, publishers and others in a way that would simply not be tolerated if they were directed at ‘minority’ faiths in the UK.  Article Four (4) of the BBC’s charter [ii] stipulates quite clearly that all of the UK’s communities should be reflected in all of its activities. Despite this the interests of the community that is represented by the established church of the country, headed by the monarch, receives the least support or consideration from the institution.  [i]   [ii] BBC Charter.

In the same way that the BBC is routinely criticised from the political Right for its Left-wing bias and from the Left for a supposed favouritism to the Right, maintaining balance in any sphere of life is difficult. Freedom of speech demands that such a balance is maintained, however hard to do. That balance can mean that last week’s bosom buddies may be this week’s fiercest foes. The reality of both free expression and a public service ethos mean that one cannot, constantly yield to the cry of ‘more of what I like’. Any broadcaster could not show a greater disrespect to its viewers than by assuming they could not be capable of dealing with new ideas.