Odds and Ends

Keeping an eye on religious matters, I've been trying to catch up with a few things and tying up a few loose ends...before moving onto other matters.

Firstly, I wanted to hear how BBC Radio 4 dealt with the election of Pope Francis, especially as the edition of The World Tonight which followed his election was hosted from Rome by blog favourite, Sunday's Edward Stourton.

Regular readers of this blog will probably know what the issue is here. Would liberal Catholic Tablet trustee Ed Stourton interview only fellow liberal Tablet Catholics and ignore, as his Sunday programme ignored for at least two years (until a post on this blog provoked a stream of complaints), its more conservative rival The Catholic Herald? 

No one listening to Ed's broadcast could say that the BBC is "anti-Catholic". Ed's report radiated the joy of the occasion. I'd say he seemed delighted. 

He interviewed Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor. Then he interviewed Edward Pentin, Vatican correspondent of The Catholic Herald. This pleased me. It was only a while back that I asked "How about Edward Pentin instead of Robert Mickens?"  and, lo and behold, here was Edward Pentin - someone I've never heard Ed Stourton interview before. Edward was pleasant towards Edward. The question is answered.

This is all good. 

A report by the BBC's Tom Esslemont raised the issue of Pope Francis and the Argentinian junta, but its Argentinian vox pop rejoiced in the elevation of Cardinal Bergoglio.  

Sister Jane Livesey and Chris Bain of Cafod followed. They sounded as hopeful as liberal Ed about the new pope. 

Ritula Shah took over as presenter at that point. She interviewed Catholic philosopher and Vatican advisor John Haldane and, yes, inevitably it had to happen, Abigail Frymann, online editor of The Tablet. I won't complain as it shows the BBC abiding by its commitment to impartiality. Someone from The Tablet appearing on the same programme as someone from The Catholic Herald is an excellent sign. A diversity of opinion is all I want. If I'm not mistaken, Abigail (critical, as ever, of Pope Benedict) seemed even happier than Prof Haldane about the election of Cardinal Bergoglio. 

The BBC's reporter in Argentina then presented the BBC's view from Argentina. She struck a balanced note. She didn't sound enthusiastic, but she wasn't negative-sounding either. Quite right.  

Ritula then interviewed Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the leader of Catholics in England. 

To complete this 'good news' part of the post, Ed then gathered together the BBC's veteran Rome correspondent and occasional Tablet contributor David Willey, Austen Ivereigh of Catholic Voices and seminarian Colin Mason. Revealingly, Ed (of the BBC) continued to sound very happy that the papal conclave hadn't produced someone in the conservative image of Benedict XVI. This is the main point of the evening where Ed's liberal bias really stood out. Being a "not-a-Catholic" it was very apparent that Ed was cheered by the "imaginative" nature of the move. However, his question to Austen Ivereigh showed his concern that the new pope wasn't on-message over such things as gay marriage (which Ed stated was a problem for "European Catholics").

Last Sunday's Sunday was equally upbeat in tone. Edward Stourton gave every impression of being a contented man (for the time being). There was a balanced report from Argentina by Bruce Douglas; John Laurenson visits Assisi, home town of St Francis; Edward discussed the rules of Ignatius Loyola with Fr. Michael Gallagher; the potential reshaping of the Curia was discussed with the ubiquitous Fr. Tom Reese and Dr Donna Orsuto of the Gregorian University; and the closing discussion was between Gerard O'Connell of Vatican insider and Tom Reese.

From hearing the unmistakable tone of Edward throughout both of these programmes and tying it in with the palpable sense of relief and satisfaction expressed by the liberal commentary team assembled by the BBC for their live coverage of the papal election (Robert Mickens, Tom Reese and Mgr. Roderick Strange), I can only say that - for the time being - the Tablet/"BBC Catholic" wing of the Church is on a bit of a high. Had the pope been someone much closer to the spirit of Benedict XVI I suspect the discussions on this edition of Sunday would have had a very different colour and tone. That's just a hunch though. It can't be proved.

The same edition of Sunday also marked the (then) coming enthronement of the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Kevin Bouquet presented a report on Justin Welby's Pilgrimage of Prayer. Trevor Barnes then interviewed the new archbishop.

The final piece of the jigsaw was put in place as regards the short series of Letters to Justin by Anglican figures. My test of the programme's commitment to impartiality was to see whether the three Anglicans chosen represented a fair spread of Church of England opinion. After the first Letter was from Canon Rosie Harper from the Church's liberal wing, the test was set:

Assuming the Sunday team are committed to the spirit of impartiality, next Sunday's speaker will be a social (and perhaps political) conservative from the other wing of the Church. The third and final speaker would then, presumably, be someone from the centre ground of Anglicanism. That would be the fair way to do it. 

If something like that happens then Sunday will have shown that it values BBC's guidelines on impartiality and we can all breathe a sigh of relief. 

Well, the second Letter was from Bishop Michael Nazir Ali from the Church's conservative wing and the final Letter was from Rt Revd Dr Solomon Tilewa Johnson, Archbishop of West Africa, from the centre ground of Anglicanism. The BBC, therefore, passed that test of impartiality with flying colours. There was no Giles Fraser after all (as I was sort-of predicting there would be)! So we can all breathe a sigh of relief!

As for Justin Welby's enthronement the BBC provided full, uninterrupted coverage live on the News Channel. In contrast to the election of Pope Francis, the BBC far exceeded Sky News here. Sky's coverage was a disaster, with their live broadcast breaking down embarrassingly on several occasions. The BBC was definitely the one to watch there.

Huw Edwards gathered together a three-person commentary team consisting of, ah yes!, Giles Fraser, Christina Rees and the retired Bishop of Manchester Nigel McCulloch. Giles and Christina are both from the Anglican Church's liberal wing, while the former Bishop of Manchester is from its centre ground. There was no one from its conservative wing. That mirrored the liberal Catholic panel gathered for the live coverage of the papal election.  There are clearly "BBC Anglicans" just as much as there are "BBC Catholics".

Moving onto matters secular, today's Dateline London bucked the trend I outlined in last week's post about the programme. (Do the makers of Dateline London read this blog?) Instead of the usual string of editions without a single right-winger, this week's panel was had not just one but two right-of-centre guests - namely the ever-charming Thomas Kielinger of Die Welt and Alex Deane of Conservative.Home. The other two guests, Mina Al Oraibi of Asharq Alawsat and Stephanie Baker of Bloomberg, are no left-wing ideologues either.

A balance of contrasting perspectives every week would be preferable though.

A balance of contrasting perspectives is something all these BBC programmes should be offering as a matter of course. Of course.

Praise be!

Sunday is continuing to improve in its handling of Catholic matters. Today's edition was another Catholic-centred programme, in anticipation of the coming papal conclave. 

As you will know if you've been reading this blog from the start, all the Catholic specials from 2011 and 2012 largely consisted of gatherings of Ed Stourton and his usual team from the liberal Catholic magazine The Tablet. Too many like-minded discussions resulted. This time, however, Samira Ahmed was the presenter and we were given a well-balanced panel consisting liberal Catholic Fr Thomas Reese, conservative Catholic Jack Valero and, from the mainstream of the Church, Sr Jane Livesey. A range of opinions resulted. Good!

The programme also featured David Willey reporting on the preparations in Rome and an extract from a new work of fiction by Sarah Dunant recreating the election of the Borgia pope. 

There was also, inevitably (and wholly reasonably) a report from Kevin Bouquet on the moral standing of the Catholic Church in Scotland in the wake of the scandals of the last couple of weeks. We heard from Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith of the Catholic Herald, Barbara Dorris of the abuse survivors' organisation SNAP, Catholic parishioners outside an Edinburgh cathedral and leading Catholic theologian Prof. John Haldane. Again, a decent cross-section of Catholic opinion. 

As you can see from that list, the long drought (i.e. complete absence) of any contributors from the Catholic Herald on the programme in 2011 and 2012 (in contrast to the large number of guests from its liberal rival The Tablet) is well and truly over. It was the overwhelming and unanswerable evidence of an imbalance (and the appearance of a conflict of interest) provided by this blog - as taken up by Damian Thompson and James MacMillan at the Telegraph and by other leading British Catholic bloggers - which sent the complaints pouring into Sunday. The BBC has clearly taken this on board and acted to remedy the situation - at least as far as Sunday is concerned. (You see, it can work!!) 

Moving onto the Church of England, last week's edition began a series of three Letters to Justin in anticipation of the moment when Justin Welby becomes the new Archbishop of Canterbury. I wrote about the series last week. It seemed a good test of the programme's commitment to impartiality to see whether it chose a representative range of Anglican opinion: 

This week's essayist was Sunday regular Canon Rosie Harper, a left-wing feminist from the liberal wing of the Church who used her talk to call for the Church of England to fully embrace her progressive values on social issues. Assuming the Sunday team are committed to the spirit of impartiality, next Sunday's speaker will be a social (and perhaps political) conservative from the other wing of the Church. The third and final speaker would then, presumably, be someone from the centre ground of Anglicanism. That would be the fair way to do it. 

If something like that happens then Sunday will have shown that it values BBC's guidelines on impartiality and we can all breathe a sigh of relief. 

If, however, they neglect to include a conservative Anglican speaker or if they feature a second firmly liberal Anglican who shares Canon Rosie's general outlook, they will have failed to meet the spirit of impartiality.  

Well, this week's talk was from Bishop Michael Nazir Ali - a leading Anglican from the Church's conservative wing. So, so far so good! 

All the programme now needs to do is to avoid giving next week's final Letter to Justin to someone like Giles Fraser (another voice from the Church's liberal wing) and that sigh of relief can well and truly be breathed!

We'll see.

This just in...

As we approach the moment when Justin Welby becomes the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Radio 4's liberal religious current affairs programme Sunday announced that it would be presenting three audio essays over the coming weeks anticipating the moment. 

Did you see what I did there? I wrote "Radio 4's liberal religious current affairs programme", even though I'm well aware that BBC Radio 4 would deny that the programme has any standpoint - liberal or conservative - and that they would also say that the programme conforms to BBC standards of impartiality.

I don't really accept that though (well, not in the way they mean). 

So, time for another test of BBC impartiality. This is to see whether the three people chosen to present the Sunday talks reflect a fair range of Anglican opinion. 

This week's essayist was Sunday regular Canon Rosie Harper, a left-wing feminist from the liberal wing of the Church who used her talk to call for the Church of England to fully embrace her progressive values on social issues. Assuming the Sunday team are committed to the spirit of impartiality, next Sunday's speaker will be a social (and perhaps political) conservative from the other wing of the Church. The third and final speaker would then, presumably, be someone from the centre ground of Anglicanism. That would be the fair way to do it. 

If something like that happens then Sunday will have shown that it values BBC's guidelines on impartiality and we can all breathe a sigh of relief. 

If, however, they neglect to include a conservative Anglican speaker or if they feature a second firmly liberal Anglican who shares Canon Rosie's general outlook, they will have failed to meet the spirit of impartiality. 

If I were writing a parody of Sunday based on my assumptions about their liberal bias, I'd have them follow Canon Rosie Harper with Frank Field and Giles Fraser! Or...with Giles Fraser and Inayat Bunglawala!...or...with George Pitcher and Giles Fraser!...or...with Ruth Gledhill and Giles Fraser! (Giles Fraser and Canon Rosie Harper sing from very much the same hymn-sheet, so there's no way an impartiality-bound Sunday should be sending him an invitation.)

As it's Sunday and time to be charitable, I'll be positive and hope that Sunday doesn't betray a liberal bias and instead gives us three contrasting Anglican points of view over the next three weeks. 

We'll see. 

Laying into the Errant Laity

As I wrote the other day, Sunday's take on the apocalyptic failure of the Church of England to vote for women bishops was bound to test the impartiality of a programme which often appears to find it hard to hide a certain lack of understanding/empathy for those who hold conservative social views. 

Some of today's edition went through the motions of balance. The opening vox pops featured two from one side and two from the other. Then when Sunday reporter Kevin Bouquet when to two parishes to find out the views of the laity, he visited a conservative church and a liberal church and spoke to the vicar and three female parishioners from each parish. There's statistical balance for you! 

Kevin's report was introduced by presenter William Crawley, who detailed the figures for bishops, clergy and laity voting for women bishops, emphasised the narrowness of the loss in the House of Laity and then said:

"And that's led many people [his emphasis] to question just how representative the Synod's House of Laity actually is of the views of ordinary members of the Church of England".

[Has anyone ever wonder just how representative the Synod's House of Bishops actually is of the views of ordinary members of the Church of England"? Certainly not Sunday!].

Here are the questions Kevin Bouquet put to the errant conservative Anglicans in Northwich, Cheshire:

"Mike, and do you think that people opposed to women bishops...do you think that they anticipated the depth of disappointment and frustration that there would be when this decision did not go through?"

"Do you have any regrets, having seen the division, the upset it's caused?"

"The Bishop of Chelmsford called this decision "a national embarrassment". What's your reaction to that?"

"And yet the people are important, aren't they? And more than 72% of Synod members voted in favour of this legislation. Was it right that the view of the minority should prevail [incredulous tone of voice] in this way?" [a partial contradiction of the lady who said that the Church should be there to please God not the people].

"Do you accept that there will be women bishops one day?" 

"So all you've won now is a kind of temporary reprieve?"

Compare those accusatory questions to the unenlightened traditionalists with these commiserating questions to the enlightened but hard-done-by liberal parishioners of Manchester:

"How do you explain the profound reaction to the decision of the Synod this week? People weren't just disappointed, they were distraught. People were in tears, weren't they?" "I wonder how you feel towards the traditionalists who prevented this legislation going through."

The first thing you will notice is that Kevin asked them far fewer questions and that they were a very different type of question - not challenging, unlike those he put to the conservative Anglicans. Instead, he just let them air their complaints at length, without interruption. 

And, as I will keep saying about Sunday [and will  produce a complete list in time], the last word of the report went to the side with whom the programme's sympathies seem to lie:

"So I think we have to be much more proactive. We have to be very careful in choosing the people we send to deaneries, synod and diocesan synod and we have to canvass them constantly, ask them questions, challenge them, make sure they are representing the voice of the laity and not just their own eccentric opinions."

That was one of the liberal parishioners, not the BBC reporter. Curiously, however, her statement that the "eccentric" conservatives need questioning and challenging (and being weeded out if found wanting) for holding on to the view which the Church had held to be orthodox teaching for 2,000 years tied in neatly with the framing of this very report and the behaviour as an interviewer of Kevin Bouquet. These traditionalists may indeed be wrong and hold opinions we may not (do not) share, but it ill behoves a BBC programme to dismiss them or treat them with disdain.

Women Bishops

Imagine you were writing a spoof of a BBC interview on the debate over women bishops in the Church of England. Your John Humphrys/Jeremy Paxman-type interviewer might begin by saying something like this, in a tone of voice drenched in sarcasm: 

"It seems extraordinary that in 2012 one of the best-known organisations in England still has a rule saying that women aren't allowed to be bosses. They can become middle managers but that's it, and the idea that a woman could ever actually run the organisation, well, forget it!" 

Especially with its talk of "bosses", you'd probably reckon on that being an over-exaggerated parody of John Humphrys. And so it is. Except that it's not a parody. That's exactly what he said when he began his interview with lay Anglican Susie Leafe and Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin, chaplain to the House of Commons speaker, on yesterday's Today over the vexed issue of women bishops. 

Once the interview began it immediately became clear that this tone of incredulity wasn't merely a rhetorical opening gambit. Some BBC interviewers find it very hard to disguise their disbelief that people in this day and age are still holding 'unenlightened' opinions on subjects like women bishops and gay marriage. John Humphrys is clearly one such interviewer, if this interview is anything to go by. 

Susie, who holds such traditionalist views on the subject of women bishops (being against them), was subject to this incredulous and somewhat mocking tone throughout, being constantly interrupted and contradicted. Rev. Rose, on the other hand, was treated with great respect throughout, allowed to speak without incessant interruption and far from being contradicted she was actively helped along  the way by her interviewer. She is, of course, strongly in favour of women bishops. As the listen-again link for this should be permanent, I won't waste an hour of my life transcribing it. Please listen to it here and I'm sure you will see exactly what I mean. 

This does keep happening. Earlier in the programme, reporter Michael Buchanan attended a prayer vigil at Westminster Abbey for both supporters and opponents on women bishops. He interviewed four lay members of  the Church, two for, two against. He challenged only one of them - and challenged him, once again, with a tone of incredulity. That person was against women bishops on theological grounds. (Go 1hr 25m in here, for the next few days only, to hear this piece.). The report was further biased by having an additional supporter of the intended move, Tim Hind (Vice-Chair of the House of Laity) and opened with another one, Canon Jane Hedges. Exact equivalence of numbers for and against isn't a strict requirement of impartiality, but it doesn't help to have an imbalance in the same direction as the other imbalance in the same report. It then does begin to suggest bias.

Today returned to the issue this morning. As is often the way with the Today website, the programme only mentions and provides a listen-again option for the interview with the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu. Another interview immediately preceded it, however. John Humphrys interviewed Alison Ruoff, a conservative lay member of the General Synod who voted against the move towards women bishops. She was also consistently interrupted, though she was not subjected to the tone of incredulity that Susie Leafe had to put up with. Then again, Archbishop Sentamu was also consistently interrupted. So this segment was not noticeably biased.

At least there has been a balance of guests on Today. Not so on The World At One where, as mentioned on the last thread, neither yesterday (because it didn't discuss the issue) nor today featured a single guest who sympathised with those opposed to women bishops. Politicians Ben Bradshaw, Grant Shapps and Chuka Umunna all had their say, all saying much the same  thing on the issue. It was a little 'social liberal' bubble. 

What though of the next Radio 4 programme in the daily cycle, PM? Well, if you thought The World at One was unbalanced...

Yesterday Eddie Mair interviewed Jane Hedges, Canon of Westminster, a supporter of women bishops. Eddie gave her a good hearing and then asked her this intriguing question:

"What's the clinching argument, do you think...or the most convincing argument on the other side of this debate that you most respect?"  

This was the prelude to two further questions:

"Are there people on the other side of this debate..having articulated how you do respect so many of the opposing points of view...are there people on the other side of this debate who are, for want of a better expression, sexist dinosaurs?" 

"Why would you want to be part of a club that treated you like this?"

Today's PM gave us the views of Jane Hedges, Canon of Westminster, a supporter of women bishops. Again. She was deeply disappointed and described how people who share her views also share her feelings of disappointment. She isn't against parliament intervening to support her side of the argument. She was followed by one of those MPs, Frank Field, who is bringing in a bill to reverse the Church's exemption to the Sex Discrimination Act in the wake of its "childish" decision not to back women bishops. Alongside Mr. Field was the Conservative MP Claire Perry. Balance? Hardly. She shared his "sadness and disappointment", being (like Mr. Field and Canon Hedges) a supporter of women bishops and also believing the failure to permit women bishops to be "sex discrimination". So far people from the same right-thinking bubble as The World at One then. At the end of today's programme PM gave a 'Thought For The Day'-style talk to someone from outside the parliamentary bubble but firmly inside the same right-thinking bubble - the atheist philosopher Julian Baggini. He finds the Church's failure to appoint women bishops "bizarrely out of touch and misogynistic" and voiced many more criticisms while calling for the Church's disestablishment. The views of those who oppose women bishops were sidelined again. Would that the production team behind PM had been as assiduous as Archbishop Sentamu in balancing the debate over women bishops between both sides.

The final programme of the daily haul of Radio 4 current affairs programmes, The World Tonight, returned to offering a debate between the two sides of the argument, represented by Canon Rosie Harper (for) and lay member Lorna Ashworth (against), hosted by Ritula Shah. There's nothing much wrong with this segment of last night's programme. Tonight's programme has not discussed the issue.

I await Sunday's take with interest.

Riots

After the shocking explosion of rioting and lawlessness that shook several English cities in August 2011, Sunday commissioned three talks from prominent figures to reflect on the events that had just taken place. 

'Is the BBC biased?' is the name on the tin so, if Damian Thompson is correct that "Nowhere in the BBC's output is Left-liberal bias more thickly applied than on Radio 4's Sunday programme", then we should be able to see that reflected in the choice of figures, in how their contributions are framed and in what they actually say. Let's see then!

1. Choice of speakers

The three speakers were a Labour MP, a liberal rabbi and the leader of a Muslim organisation. A classic Left-liberal choice, at first glance. 

Rabbi Julia Neuberger is 'certainly Left-liberal' through and through. A familiar figure, at the time she sat on the Liberal Democrat benches in the House of Lords, though she resigned from the party later in the year. 

Fiyaz Mughal of Faith Matters, which Ed Stourton described as being "a Muslim group committed to reducing extremism and inter-faith tension", turned out to be 'Left-liberal' too. He was a former Deputy President of the Liberal Democrat Party. 

Interestingly - and complicating matters pleasingly! - the Labour MP was Frank Field. Being a Labour MP, he can obviously be described as being 'Left' (to an extent!) but 'Left-liberal' doesn't fit him, and he's always been popular with conservatives - and Conservatives. He is a leading Anglican too. 

An actual Conservative or, more generally, any right-wing speaker is noticeably missing from this short list - a revealing omission, don't you think? Why was that side of the debate missing?

2. What they said

What follows are my transcripts of the three talks. They are all of interest, and can now be preserved for posterity (thanks to this little blog!).

1. Frank Field:

"The country no longer sings from the same hymn-sheet. That is the lesson I draw from the recent rioting and looting. To give a sense that the whole country from onboard the same train journey, even if we were in different compartments, the Victorians put much effort into creating what we would now call 'a public ideology'. This was a period when Christianity had come under sustained attack. The governing elite reacted by seeing how it could maintain much of Christian morality without it being underpinned by Christian dogma. The question posed was 'Is it possible to retain allegiance to our moral code or social ground rules without that code being undergirded by faith?' For almost a century the Victorians achieved what many people now think impossible - they maintained, in effect, a secular morality. The country WAS blessed by one individual, the philosopher T.H. Green, took much of the honey from the Christian hive and placed it in more secular surroundings. English idealism, the product of Green's work, became a public ideology or hymn-sheet. The aim was to create a society where everyone could develop their best selves and one that realised that this could only be achieved if we has a strong sense of community. Although this was a period of falling church attendances, it was one in which English idealism held sway. But no more. Why? One reason stands out. We have lost the confidence to teach a set of beliefs about our society's objectives and the rules that need to be followed if these ends are to be achieved. No-one, sadly, is much interested in doing what T.H. Green did. So how might we go about trying to emulate this extraordinary Victorian achievement? In place of one faith we now have many, and those without faith. Yet I've found it impossible to interest anybody in the task of looking at what each of these faiths see as the goals of life. There has been a similar lack of interest in knowing what these faiths see as the ground rules if the good life is to be achieved. My guess is that we will find much agreement over both ends and means. If I'm right we could have the basis for an agreed morality, a social highway code which we could confidently teach. It would tell us what the country was trying to achieve, both in terms of each individual's worth and what we see as the right ends to which individuals should aim. Nobody should pretend this journey would be easy and there is an alternative. That alternative erupted onto British streets only weeks ago."

2. Rabbi Julia Neuberger:

"In my view the riots this summer were not a particular sign that our society is sick. Unlike the Prime Minister, I think it may well have been a one-off and not the start of something new. We've always has occasional rioting - Notting Hill, Broadwater Farm, Brixton and so on - but I DO think that there is a deep moral malaise in our society. It's just that those problems go deeper and our more widespread than the riots, however unpleasant, however frightening they were. First, we depersonalise our older people and talk about them as a demographic time-bomb. We've watched Southern Cross go bust and seen thousands of older people in care homes waiting anxiously to know their future, yet what are we doing to bring comfort, certainty and hope? Secondly, and similarly, we've allowed a huge number of our young to be in a position where they can't find work. However bubbly, energetic and full of hope they are when they start looking, the dejection and the depression is real as they are rejected time and again however hard they try. I think we should be creating jobs for young people and carving out exciting new volunteering opportunities for them as well. But that's expensive and would mean stopping cuts in those parts of our voluntary sector that could find things for them to do. So it's not really about riots, it's about our attitudes to the young and the old. And it's about our lack of energy and sense of urgency in doing anything about all this. When societies recognise they are in trouble they often heal themselves by a massive growth in what we might call 'civic institutions'. The Chief Rabbi makes this point. After the Industrial Revolution, with people living in fear of attack on the streets of our cities, friendly societies  mutuals, charitable foundations and housing associations, many of them religious, with loads of people volunteering, sprang up all over the country. People felt they had a responsibility to heal what was wrong with our society. And that's what's missing now. Sure, there are modern philanthropists doing their best (though we need far more) and there are small, independent start-up organisations trying to make the world a better place, but it's for ALL of us to make the world a better place, riots or no riots. At a time of real worry about our future, real tightening of belts, with an angry element in society that doesn't feel it has a share in it, that sense of needing to make the world, our country, our city, our neighbourhood a better place needs renewal. We saw local communities could out to clean up in the wake of the riots. If we could just harness that wonderful energy, we might just find a way through. But it's not just for them to do it. It's for all of us - of all faiths, ages, political views, wherever we live, nationwide."

3. Fiyaz Mughal:

"The prime minister suggests that our society is broken and sick and suggests that there is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society. This view, which is simplistic, does not reflect the huge activities in civil society - faith groups and groups who are based on social justice, who have acted for decades as a glue between communities in local areas in the UK. Such a statement by the Prime Minister simply disregards all of this energy and focus. Without such interfaith, cohesion and community development activities involving young people the intensity and the length of the riots would have been considerably worse. Our society is NOT broken. It's simply challenged from time to time when we stop listening or when we disregard those who are the voiceless or the unseen. Within an Islamic context, ensuring cohesive communities is fundamental to the well-being of a community, a region and a nation. Indeed, at the very roots of the inception of Islam debate, discussion and listening to one another were a fundamental part of the faith and its energy. Allied to that, within Islam there is a consistent message that while God can provide solutions and give hope we must also use our energies to create a sense of social justice and harmony. Islam repeatedly talks of the divine and the here-and-now within a strong envelope of social justice and social harmony. It always gives people a direct link to God whilst stating that the mercy of God is available for those people who make mistakes. With this in mind, the role of family, education, social action for good and hope are all part of the equation which Islam promotes and whilst there are areas of confluence with the statement of the Prime Minister about the need for proper ethics, morals and parenting, there is also a distinct set of differences. We cannot regard society as broken when there are so many energies and so many social forces that have successfully kept us together for decades - young and old, black and white, male and female. Islam asks people to look at the totality of social situations and guides people away from narrow definitions and this is why the actions of many of those who commit crimes in the name of Islam are so fundamentally wrong. This is also where it diverges from such a comment made by the Prime Minister. We must, therefore, step back and look at the reasons why the riots took place and come up with reasons that we can act upon without blaming our younger generations or our society or our communities. A handful of young people simply cannot dictate how we look at our younger generations in the future. That would be a disastrous legacy of the riots."

As this is a blog about bias, I will not dwell too long on my own reactions to these talks. Frank Field's contribution had me thinking for hours after I first heard it. He has a part-alluring, part-concerning big idea. It is most unlikely ever to be put into practice. (The ideas of T.H. Green, incidentally, seem to be quite popular with Labour Party thinkers. Roy Hattersley is another fan). Baroness Neuberger's feeling that the August riots were "a one-off" looks to have been a shrewd insight. Having had the all the uplift of the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic Games (an uplift most people in the UK seem to have shared), the August riots seem like an old nightmare. (They won't, of course, to their victims). Mr. Mughal's contribution might be said to make him a natural for Platitude Thought For The Day, and it was a bit too 'missionary' in nature for my tastes.  

Back to the bias. I don't think there's anything in what the three speakers chosen by Sunday actually said to bat away the claim that the programme fished only in the 'Left' or 'liberal' pool of public opinion for its perspectives on the riots - except that Mr. Field's contribution would surely appeal more to to conservatives (of Right or Left) rather more than to liberals. (Do you agree?)  

It is also worth pointing out that the Labour MP was the only speaker not to criticise and disagree with David Cameron! 

...which brings me to...

3. How the talks were framed

The debates were framed as responses to David Cameron's claims of a "broken" and "sick" society. This makes the absence of a Conservative voice all the more puzzling. 

Frank Field's contribution was was introduced by Edward Stourton in the following way:

'There are pockets of society that are not only broken but frankly sick.' That was the Prime Minister's response to the outbreak of looting and public disorder which erupted early last month. We've asked three prominent figures to reflect on what happened and the way that we collectively should respond. They're all people of faith and people who are actively involved in politics or community service. First up Frank Field, a member of the church of England General Synod and a veteran Labour MP.

 Julia Neuberger's talk was introduced by William Crawley like this:

On last week's 'Sunday' the MP Frank Field gave his analysis of the August riots. We had a lot of response to what he said. Here's just a taste of what you told us. Phil Edwards picked up on Frank Field's reference to the 19th Century philosopher T.H. Green. Phil writes, 'I don't think we can adapt the ideas of Victorian philosophy to the age we live in. My own personal belief on how to change people's attitudes is for our governments to lead by example, by behaving in a moral and honest way, but it is clear that there is no single explanation for the recent riots that enjoys universal support. Politicians, religious leaders, columnists, bloggers, academics and community activists will probably continue to debate the factors that became triggers for the riots for years to come.' Here's another voice in that debate, Rabbi Julia Neuberger.

Ed Stourton's introduction to Fiyaz Mughal ran as follows:

Over the past couple of weeks we've broadcast a series of essays prompted by the Prime Minister's response to the August riots. We've already heard from the Labour MP and General Synod member Frank Field and from Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a Liberal Democrat peer. This week the thoughts of Fiyaz Mughal, direct of Faith Matters, a Muslim group committed to reducing extremism and inter-faith tension.

Conclusions

The absence of a voice from the Right making a case that right-wing listeners would feel reflected their outlook of the August riots certainly suggests 'Left-liberal' bias on the programme's part. You may be perfectly comfortable with that (if you take a 'Left-liberal' line yourself, but please imagine the boot being on the other foot. Would you be happy if Sunday had asked three 'Right-conservatives' to give their views?