The impartial Christian Institute
Oh I love it when people with an agenda accuse other people of bias.
A BBC film on assisted suicide was “biased”, critics have said.
Care Not Killing campaigners said Choosing to Die, which shows a British man with motor neurone disease dying, was “pro-assisted suicide propaganda loosely dressed up as a documentary”.
And the ex-Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir Ali, said it “glorified
suicide”.…
The Bishop of Exeter, the Right Reverend Michael Langrish, said he wanted to see “much more emphasis put on supporting people in living, than assisting them in dying”.
Oh well then – ! If Care Not Killing campaigners and a bishop say it’s propaganda, well, they certainly are unimpeachable authorities on how to be free of bias, right? As of course is the Christian Institute.
The BBC is facing a storm of controversy after it aired Sir Terry Pratchett’s “very unbalanced” documentary on assisted suicide last night.
The Corporation has received hundreds of complaints about the programme, Choosing to Die, which went out on BBC2 at 9pm.
And critics, including the Bishop of Exeter, spoke out against the programme amid an accusation that it was “one-sided”.
Said the multi-sided Christian institute.
Reviewing the programme in The Guardian newspaper, Sam Wollaston described the clinic, which is operated by Dignitas, as: “Not a lovely chalet in the mountains, with meadows and edelweiss and the sound of cowbells, as you might hope for; but a strange blue prefab on a Zurich industrial site.”
Oh good point. Just what ill disabled people need: a long expensive taxi ride up to a mountain chalet as opposed to a comparatively short affordable trip to an urban building. Plus of course that’s so obviously a telling example of bias and propaganda, the fact that the BBC didn’t pretend Dignitas was in a pretty meadow.
Ex-bishop Nazi-Ally seems to be making a second career as a Christianist rent-a-quote.
This criticism is just plain malicious. The location in an industrial estate was pointed out in the documentary and the reason is that a ruling from a Swiss court prevents them from operating in a residential area and mandates that they must be in an area zoned for industrial use.
Well, if the churches don’t want people to die in an industrial building, then perhaps they should make it possible for them to die at home?
However: I don’t expect advocacy groups on any side of any question to be impartial, though I do expect them to be truthful. But it does seem reasonable to me to expect the public broadcaster to be impartial (having not watched the docko, I couldn’t say whether it was).
Yeah, impartiality is great in theory. It does presuppose that there are only two sides to a question though, and not three or four or whatever; and also that both sides have an equal claim to be true, which is why proponents of woo and quack medicine are always clamoring for more impartiality, more balance.
For me it’s just another instance of the churches, any church really, picking a fight, any fight, to get their name in the papers and be seen as a defender of morality, even if it’s the cheap and simplistic version of morality that usually disguise itself as common sense.
It was a thoughtful documentary. The presenter was Terry Pratchett, who is himself considering assisted suicide, but it was *far* from propaganda. The most striking part of the show was Pratchett and his assistant obviously trying to decide what they thought about the proceedings, even though they agreed with the principle. It’s hard to imagine how much further from propaganda you can get.
If you can watch it on iplayer or elsewhere, you should.
It was a very moving documentary, it wasn’t propaganda for either side. It showed quite clearly that this is a difficult subject that affects not just the person that dies but also their family, friends etc. They not only showed the man that went to Zurich to die, they also showed another man with the same disease who had decided to go into a hospice and to let nature take it’s course. Which decision is correct? They both are. Two different people with different outlooks come to two different decisions, neither of which is wrong. That was the whole point of the program, that individuals should have the right to make their own decisions.
The propaganda is put out by theists who insist that they are correct and that no one should be allowed to take this decision for themselves because the theists have already taken the decision. If these people do not want to take part in an assisted suicide, that is their right, no one will force them to. They should accept that they have no moral right to insist that others should abide by their strictures.
Yes but saying that individuals should have the right to make their own decisions is bias, don’t you see? The neutral thing to say is that only god has the right to make decisions for the individual.
You people just don’t know bias when you see it. It’s a crying shame.
I’m afraid the vituperation got even worse. If you want to go lower than the church, go to Damian Thompson and ‘Why Is The BBC So Keen On People Topping Themselves?’
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100092115/why-is-the-bbc-so-keen-on-people-topping-themselves/
The contrast with the measured, humane outlook of the programme’s presenter could not be greater. The reality of the religious mindset, in vivid shrieking prose.
To be fair to the Telegraph though – not a sentence I ever thought I would type – they also published this
and not only online but also in the actual paper, TV review section.
Obviously in that, there was also this sentence:
But, hey, that’s balance for you!
So if the setting was nicer then they would be all for it ?
When the knock out argument is a critique of the architecture you know they have nothing substantive to bring to the discussion.
Like xtians “supporting” homosexuals by denying them basic rights to marry and adopt, “supporting” women by denying them basic autonomy over their bodies or “supporting” children by molesting them for centuries and covering it up.
I’m thinking we could do with a lot less xtian “support” in all areas of our lives, thank you very much.
[Steels self for unpleasant task of reading the Damian Thompson piece]
Jesus and Mo timely resurrection:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2011/06/14/death2/
There was a piece on the morning news here in Argentina – they brought in two ‘experts’ to give their opinions. They were both from the Catholic Church.
What an utterly odious little scrote this man is. His only saving grace is that, as far as I can figure out, he hates himself just as much as he hates the rest of us.
Has anyone non-religious come up with any criticisms of the programme yet? Nope? Didn’t think so :-) To all religionists, when my time comes please keep your fairytales out of my death.
Clear as glass. Truth = unfair bias.
I wish I could say this was the first time I saw it, though.
Though I suspect maybe the location comment was only intended as an off-handed “yuck!”
Actually I think it’s perfectly reasonable for biased organizations to point out bias, as long as they can actually point to real, visible examples. I don’t think their own bias has anything to do with the veracity of their claims. I think the real thing worth considering is that their examples are pathetic.
@C. Taylor – Indeed so. All else is comedy.
I blogged about Terry Pratchett’s programme when it was announced the week before in Radio Times. The BBC linked to my post and as a result I’ve had many comments. Not one of those comments is against the legalisation of assisted dying in Britain.
The fact that the place people go to die in Switzerland is a blue prefab on an industrial estate illustrates the problem. Those in favour of assisted dying don’t want to die on an industrial estate, but that’s what’s on offer. In the Radio Times article Terry Pratchett made his views plain: