Past EED rants


Live leaderboard

Poker leaderboard

Voice of EED

Monday 12 March 2007

Thought of the Day [Lurks]

This morning, for some reason, I felt the need to listen to some news/talk on the radio rather than slapping my music on. I turned on Radio 2 and ended up with Wogan. This went on for a bit and then he introduced a reasonable sounding man who's name escapes me, a reverend no less. He then began to deliver this crazy traditional sequence which has been a feature of radio from a long gone era, your 'thought of the day' type thing.
This chap, ironically, was holding up the channel 4 programme The Great Global Warming Swindle as an example of scientists who are certain in their beliefs. Then he goes on to say that being certain is not an attractive trait and then launches straight into how what one ought to demonstrate is a healthy scepticism, which I find hilarious coming from a Christian.
It was a remarkable burst of religious claptop riddled with hypocrasy which was seemingly unapparent to the chap. He was all very reasonable about it, he was also all very superficial, bordering on misleading when it comes to the core premise, presumably, that scientists are bad because they are all very certain. Not understanding science very well then, surprise surprise.
Forgive me for digressing onto this burst of lunacy, what I actually wanted to comment on was the way that many radio stations carry this 'thought of the day' type nonsense. Sure as eggs this chap will be on every day and it gets me to thinking, why is that? This is a largely secular country now (thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster, may His noodly appendage be upon you) so what business does this view point have on the show, much less every day?
Where's the secular thought of the day? Think how much more useful a 3 minute burst from a scientist explaining, for the layman, the real situation of global warming and putting the channel 4 'documentary' in context? I emailed as such to the BBC.
As I also emailed to the BBC, I'd also say why aren't we looking a preportional views? Maybe one religious 'thought of the day' per week in order to represent the views of the small percentage of bonafide bible thumpers left in the country?
The only objection I can think of is that it might be a little hard to choose someone to in essence represent secular thinking. Least of all someone who sounds so imminently congenial on the radio. That's still a piss poor reason not to try. Who is it that has decided that there should remain a moral burst in some 40's era throwback? Assuming you believed that are there any secular speakers that might deliver a moral message or has the concept of the moral speaker and the message washed down the sink along with religion in general? In some sense, given the things we see in society now, that seems a bit of a shame to me.
Does anyone else have a local station with a thought of the day type thing and what does it consist of?

1 comment:

  1. Can't offer a particularly different insight since the Thought For the Day speaker I hear is usually on Radio 4 (also by the BBC for those over you reading from f0rn parts) which, again, invariably shoehorns one of the creator-squad into the audio output of my workbound chariot. Why, as you say, can they not have a notable humanist in this slot? Perhaps they do but I've never heard it for one. Radio 2, imho, is actually little worse because Terry Wogan always seems a tad referential in his introduction to his. I guess you can never get respect for a man'o'god out of the Irish.
    Concerning the environment, Radio 4 actually managed to disgrace themselves a little today. The interviewer ambushed David Cameron that everyone's favourite Vulcan, John Redwood, had blogged on his site (look it up if you must, I really suggest you don't) that Mars-probes have monitored warming of that planet 'but no-one's spotted the 4x4's there yet'. Cameron actually had the drop on this and said 'well I haven't read it - have you?' and the interviewer said 'rather more of it than you' (which was an answer to me that indicated, no he hadn't but his reasearchers had given him a bit more of an excerpt) and pressed on saying how could Cameron have a man making economic policy recommendations who says such un-green stuff etc.
    A quick read of the blog of course turns up that Redwood said in the same very short blog, following this 'jokey aside' that he thought it important to keep an open critical approach to evaluating the science around the issue only in that, if monitoring of temperature increases in Mars were scientifically noted, we need to quantify any solar effects that could contribute to that BUT that reducing carbon emissions was important, that people should reduce their footprint, that it was a priority and all the rest. All of this latter part in a short two para blog was conveniently left out by the BBC. Since Cameron hadn't read the blog in question he unfortunately couldn't nuke them on this point but the bias remains the same...
    Lord knows the distance I'll go to defend a dyed-in-the-wool conservative like Redwood can be measured in nanometres but this was really pretty loaded BBC. Not good.