The author of this book died recently (he was in his 90s) and there was a tribute Global Business programme on BBC World Service in the middle of the night. (Cure for insomnia that actually kept me awake.) Listen here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0053d49
Mr Ackoff made the claim that no one in the west understands how corporations work hence they have an average life of only 15 years. He makes some useful points – and he’s quite funny too in a dry sort of way.

Thought for the Day will remain closed to atheists and humanists, after the BBC Trust rejected accusations that the Radio 4 programme is in breach of editorial guidelines.

The regulator said it was a ???matter of discretion??? for director general Mark Thompson and the BBC executive to decide whether to keep the religious slot as it is, or to change it to include non-religious perspectives.

The ruling follows complaints from lobby groups, who said the policy of only allowing speakers from mainstream faiths amounted to discrimination, and that it was inappropriate for a religious programme to air as part of the Today programme, which is focused on news and current affairs.

Richard Tait, chairman of the Trust???s editorial standards committee, noted that ???some people strongly about this issue??? but argued that the status quo is not in breach of the guidelines and that any future complaints should be dealt with on a case by case basis rather than with a blanket ruling.

???We recognise that there may be cases in the future where concerns are raised about content on Thought for the Day, however, these should be dealt with as and when they arise in line with other editorial matters and procedures,??? he said.

Many BBC staff feel an exclusively religious Thought for the Day is anachronistic and that it should host non-religious speakers such as humanists ??? but fear such a move would open the floodgates to other, more marginal faiths such Scientologists.

However, the ruling is likely to anger lobby groups, who have already suggested that the BBC may be in breach of equality law and not just its own editorial guidelines.

The National Secular Society, which lodged one of the original complaints to the Trust, immediately rejected the decision as a ???blatant an abuse of religious privilege??? and vowed to pursue new ways of forcing the BBC to invite secular speakers onto the two-minute programme.

Terry Sanderson, president of the organisation, said: ???This decision says to [non-religious people] that their ???thoughts??? are not worth hearing and that somehow religious opinions are more worthy of a special, unchallengeable platform.

???Whether it???s euthanasia or gay rights, abortion or foreign aid, the religious speakers have a platform on the flagship news programme to put a biased point of view that no-one can question them about. Nobody else on the Today programme can get away with that.???

???We will be looking at other ways of challenging this unjustifiable slot.???

Readers’ comments

(3)

• Anonymous | 17-Nov-2009 12:31 pm

  Some of the greatest thoughts in history have come from humanists and atheists…

  Unsuitable or offensive?

• Anonymous | 17-Nov-2009 12:41 pm

  Good, I’m glad the athiests and the humanists have been blocked from this tiny section of the Today programme. If I wanted to hear what a person with no spiritual compass thought about a recent global event I’d hold a conversation with myself.

  Unsuitable or offensive?

• Simon Scott | 17-Nov-2009 2:18 pm

  I’m not sure how they can suggest that having atheists on would open the floodgates for marginal faiths. The last census found that 7.7% of people were “of no religion”. This compares with 3.1% Muslim; 1.1& Hindu; .7% sikh and .5% Jewish and .3% Buddhist. If Tait wants his position taken seriously, he should set a bar and live by it, like they do with Question Time.

  Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

I’ve always said that if I want to hear secular views I can listen to acres of output on most broadcast programmes. It does no harm to hear from someone who can “lift our eyes above the mundane to the transcendent” – to quote a former Head Religious Broadcasting at the BBC – Colin Morris.

The decision about when and how to take on the tabloid press is never an easy one for governments. Get it wrong and you look thin-skinned, defensive, even paranoid. But now is just the time for Labour to challenge the Sun over its coverage of Gordon Brown in general and of the Jamie Janes story in particular.

This could be a defining moment in the relationship between Downing Street and the media. The Sun revels in its reputation for striking fear in those political leaders in chooses to demonise. It would like nothing more than to go into yet another election campaign as Britain’s most talked about and powerful newspaper. Labour will be doing everybody outside of News International a favour if it can show that those days are gone.

As the readers’ polls and email comments to every news organisation ??? including the Sun ??? show, the paper got it wrong this time. Its coverage was so vindictive and blatantly unfair that it succeeded in winning sympathy for the prime minister, not an easy thing to do these days.

Lord Mandelson was shrewd to use this opportunity to draw attention to what he called the “contract” between the paper and the Tories. With the public already questioning the Sun’s motives, now is exactly the moment to prepare the voters for more of the same and ??? crucially ??? to warn the BBC and others of the risks of following the tabloid agenda too readily.

With so many people now getting their news and analysis online or via their mobiles, the power of the newspapers to influence opinion will be at an all-time low in the coming election. It was never as great as some chose to believe. Labour’s wooing of the tabloids for the past decade and a half was born out of a misguided belief that it really was the Sun “wot won it” for John Major in 1992.

The party has no choice but to confront the Sun. Labour is not going to get its support back so it must neutralise the damage it seeks to do as effectively as possible. But it is in a stronger position to do so than any party had been in before. The paper understands that and is already rowing back. For the first time this morning it described the prime minister’s letter as “well-meaning”. Brown has shown great dignity and patience in the way he has spoken both to and about Mrs Janes.

Labour won’t want to prolong the story. Nor will it draw much comfort from the perception that the prime minister has been badly treated. You don’t win elections on the basis of voters feeling sorry for you. But if there is a lasting impression that “It was the Sun wot spun it” then the party may have helped inoculate itself against future attacks.

Labour will almost certainly go into the next election with its lowest level of newspaper support for a generation, but that doesn’t mean it has to fight with its hands tied. As Lord Mandelson said, “the public will be the judge”. And with luck they will reach their judgment having treated the evidence of tabloid journalism with the scepticism it deserves.

so don’t buy or believe The Sun

Genuine remorse? Not really. He regrets that Brown has been ‘unlucky’ but doesn’t condemn The Sun’s handling of the Jaqui Janes story.

I am angry at the way Rupert Murdoch’s empire is exploiting the grief of a bereaved mother to further its campaign against the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. I am also angry that The Sun newspaper is undermining this country’s difficult military strategy in Afghanistan.

Remember that Rupert Murdoch is only interested in building his empire and making money. He doesn’t care about the future of this country, the feelings of the mother, Jaqui Janes, or the lives of our soldiers in the conflict. News International wants to make money – full stop. It seems to me that if it means undermining a government, exploiting grief or putting military lives at risk that’s all part of the money making plan. By publishing a surreptitiously recorded phone call between the PM and Mrs Janes, The Sun has clearly gone against Press Complaints Commission’s code of conduct to grab another headline and extend the story by another day.

I am also unhappy that the BBC made such a big deal of the story – adding fuel to the fire and exciting the frenzy. Have the other papers gone big on this story today? No, because they recognise it for what it is. They have their own profits to make and thankfully for some of them, their own standards below which they won’t allow themselves to fall.

I’ve heard no end of commentators this morning saying how Gordon Brown must be feeling, but when I heard him speak and answer their questions at his press conference, he sounded perfectly composed and in control. Do they believe that if they tell us he’s losing it often enough it will somehow come true?

So I suggest that if you care; if this has also bothered you; that you stop buying the things that put money in Rupert Murdoch’s pocket – The Sun, The Times, films from 20th Century Fox and Sky TV, and lets starve his empire until he comes to his senses. Or do we want the future of our country to be determined by media barons instead of the ballot box? So Don’t Buy The Sun. OK

 

This entry was posted

on Tuesday, November 10th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

and is filed under events, journalism, media, opinion, politics.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Edit this entry.