Uploaded June 2024 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
This is the first part of a three part series I made for Channel four.
My boss was George Carey, now retired, who was one of those old, unreconstructed Television execs who I would fondly liken to Gene Hunt from ‘Life on Mars’. I say fondly because George, for all he could be fiery and formidable was also brave and loyal. He would always fight for what he believed was right. He was one of the very best I ever worked for.
I didn’t know that when I first met him. He’d sent me an outline for a series that his company had developed. It was to do with science and religion. He asked me what I thought of it and for once I thought, “I must try to be diplomatic”, so I said, “This is in the foothills. We need to be on the summit.” To his credit he didn’t laugh at me nor did he hold it against me. I think many TV execs would have.
Instead he just said, “Fine. Get it there.” We discussed the sort of thing I had in mind and that was that.
The goal I set myself was to make a series which avoided what I call ‘The Christmas Tree’ structure. That’s my name for when a documentary claims it is going to give two very different views equal weight but then allows (sometimes deliberately sometimes unconsciously) one of the world views to provide all the underlying intellectual assumptions and structure, while the other is fitted around it like baubles on the end of the branches. Both views are there but one is reduced to mere decoration. I was determined that we should allow neither the science world view nor the religious to dominate. George was fully behind this.
I think we succeeded. Obviously, every viewer will have their own opinion. But my reason for thinking we did avoid letting either world view dominate, not allowing either side to provide the structure of unspoken assumptions that the other would then be forced to fit into and therefore be destined to ‘loose’ to, was this. A few days after the first part (or it may have been after all three parts. I can’t remember) was broadcast, I received a notice from Channel Four to say there had been a formal complaint. It was from a Christian organisation that said Channel Four had blatantly lied about the series being even handed. The complaint said it was obvious that the series was entirely biased toward science.
This was a proper, formal complaint (to Ofcom or its equivalent back then) that could have serious consequences so I had to write a formal reply. I remember feeling a little dismayed. For some reason I decided that I would ring Richard Dawkins who was in the series. I can’t remember exactly why, but phone him I did. I don’t know Richard terribly well but I have interviewed him numerous times. We have always had a somewhat prickly relationship.
Richard said immediately he was glad I had phoned because he was furious. He felt I had lied about the series being even handed. It was obvious to him the series had been entirely partisan in favour of religion and biased against science. Now after twenty years I cannot swear to the exact words and Richard if he remembers it and me at all might tell a different story. But my memory is that after feeling a little taken aback (no one likes being accused of lying twice in one morning) I recovered enough to explain about the Christian organisation’s complaint. I said of course he should make a formal complaint if he felt we had been biased but wondered if I could put him in contact with the first complainant so they could coordinate some sort of pincer movement.
I don’t remember Richard being amused. And of course memory may have embellished what really happened. But there was a complain and Richard did accuse me of anti-science bias.
In my reply to the first complaint I mentioned my call with Richard. I never heard anything more from either side but felt, all in all, the morning had not been wasted.
Ian and I plan on doing a podcast about the ideas we explored in the series in the coming weeks.
This is the first part of a three part series I made for Channel four.
My boss was George Carey, now retired, who was one of those old, unreconstructed Television execs who I would fondly liken to Gene Hunt from ‘Life on Mars’. I say fondly because George, for all he could be fiery and formidable was also brave and loyal. He would always fight for what he believed was right. He was one of the very best I ever worked for.
I didn’t know that when I first met him. He’d sent me an outline for a series that his company had developed. It was to do with science and religion. He asked me what I thought of it and for once I thought, “I must try to be diplomatic”, so I said, “This is in the foothills. We need to be on the summit.” To his credit he didn’t laugh at me nor did he hold it against me. I think many TV execs would have.
Instead he just said, “Fine. Get it there.” We discussed the sort of thing I had in mind and that was that.
The goal I set myself was to make a series which avoided what I call ‘The Christmas Tree’ structure. That’s my name for when a documentary claims it is going to give two very different views equal weight but then allows (sometimes deliberately sometimes unconsciously) one of the world views to provide all the underlying intellectual assumptions and structure, while the other is fitted around it like baubles on the end of the branches. Both views are there but one is reduced to mere decoration. I was determined that we should allow neither the science world view nor the religious to dominate. George was fully behind this.
I think we succeeded. Obviously, every viewer will have their own opinion. But my reason for thinking we did avoid letting either world view dominate, not allowing either side to provide the structure of unspoken assumptions that the other would then be forced to fit into and therefore be destined to ‘loose’ to, was this. A few days after the first part (or it may have been after all three parts. I can’t remember) was broadcast, I received a notice from Channel Four to say there had been a formal complaint. It was from a Christian organisation that said Channel Four had blatantly lied about the series being even handed. The complaint said it was obvious that the series was entirely biased toward science.
This was a proper, formal complaint (to Ofcom or its equivalent back then) that could have serious consequences so I had to write a formal reply. I remember feeling a little dismayed. For some reason I decided that I would ring Richard Dawkins who was in the series. I can’t remember exactly why, but phone him I did. I don’t know Richard terribly well but I have interviewed him numerous times. We have always had a somewhat prickly relationship.
Richard said immediately he was glad I had phoned because he was furious. He felt I had lied about the series being even handed. It was obvious to him the series had been entirely partisan in favour of religion and biased against science. Now after twenty years I cannot swear to the exact words and Richard if he remembers it and me at all might tell a different story. But my memory is that after feeling a little taken aback (no one likes being accused of lying twice in one morning) I recovered enough to explain about the Christian organisation’s complaint. I said of course he should make a formal complaint if he felt we had been biased but wondered if I could put him in contact with the first complainant so they could coordinate some sort of pincer movement.
I don’t remember Richard being amused. And of course memory may have embellished what really happened. But there was a complain and Richard did accuse me of anti-science bias.
In my reply to the first complaint I mentioned my call with Richard. I never heard anything more from either side but felt, all in all, the morning had not been wasted.
Ian and I plan on doing a podcast about the ideas we explored in the series in the coming weeks.
