Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: john on February 11, 2016, 08:33:51 AM
-
Dan Walker, who I had only ever seen in the role of soccer commentator, is to take over from Bill Turnbull as the permanent main presenter on the BBC Breakfast programme later this month.
According to today's Times newspaper this has caused a bit of a stir at the beeb and elsewhere because Walker is a creationist. He believes the earth to be about 6,000 years old, the bible to be literally true, dinosaurs lived alongside humans, etc. He also refuses to work on Sundays.
"The stir" as reported in The Times worries that the programmes credibility might be compromised when he has to deal with science issues etc.
How to you guys and gals feel his beliefs will affect or not the beeb's image?
-
He's a presenter reading an autocue so his personal views shouldn't come into it and shouldn't matter. If he attempts to vocalise them then his employers should point out he is representing the BBC not there to represent his own views and take disciplinary actin if necessary. If they didn't I think it would be this that would effect the BBC's reputation.
-
Pretty much what Maeght said. It's irrelevant to the job unless he chooses to make it so.
-
I agree, he should be judged by his actions rather than (what we think are) his beliefs, but one could imagine problem scenarios ahead. How would he handle a guest appearance by Richard Dawkins :o
-
I agree, he should be judged by his actions rather than (what we think are) his beliefs, but one could imagine problem scenarios ahead. How would he handle a guest appearance by Richard Dawkins :o
How does Bill Turnbull or any of the other presenters handle guest appearances by those they disagree with?
-
Dan Walker, who I had only ever seen in the role of soccer commentator, is to take over from Bill Turnbull as the permanent main presenter on the BBC Breakfast programme later this month.
According to today's Times newspaper this has caused a bit of a stir at the beeb and elsewhere because Walker is a creationist. He believes the earth to be about 6,000 years old, the bible to be literally true, dinosaurs lived alongside humans, etc. He also refuses to work on Sundays.
"The stir" as reported in The Times worries that the programmes credibility might be compromised when he has to deal with science issues etc.
How to you guys and gals feel his beliefs will affect or not the beeb's image?
I have never heard of him, but how very sad, anyone can believe that nonsense to be true! :(
-
According to today's Times newspaper this has caused a bit of a stir at the beeb and elsewhere because Walker is a creationist. He believes the earth to be about 6,000 years old, the bible to be literally true, dinosaurs lived alongside humans, etc. He also refuses to work on Sundays.
Unfortunately, I can't open the full Times article as I don't have a subscription to the paper online. Has this been picked up by any other media, which might be more accessible? As someone who has been following Walker for some time, I've certainly never heard him espouse creationist ideas, though he has certainly espoused more mainstream Christian ideas in articles and interviews I've read.
-
I have never heard of him, but how very sad, anyone can believe that nonsense to be true! :(
It takes all sorts to make a world, Roses! :)
Fortunately there aren't many who believe 'that nonsense'.
-
It takes all sorts to make a world, Roses! :)
Fortunately there aren't many who believe 'that nonsense'.
True!
-
Hope
Here you are today's Telegraph says " Dan Walkers creationism is an affront to reason, science and logic.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/12152098/Dan-Walkers-creationism-is-an-affront-to-reason-science-and-logic.html
Perhaps they will soon appoint David Icke as science correspondent !
-
How does Bill Turnbull or any of the other presenters handle guest appearances by those they disagree with?
We don't necessarily know do we, I'm sure that most presenters have their private strange beliefs. But in this case there would be an obvious 'elephant in the room' if he had to interview Dawkins or make a contribution to that (sadly inevitable) blockbuster: A tribute to the late David Attenborough.
-
I don't watch the BBC Breakfast Programme but, as long as the presenters are professional, what do their personal opinions matter?
-
This mornings programme was germane, one of the items being discussed was the latest "Gravitational waves discoveries". A physicist was being interviewed by the presenters Naga Munchetti and John Kay, their role being (I guess) to help us laymen viewers understand the issues by asking pertinent questions. I don't know how someone who believes the world and everything was created in six days between only six and ten thousand years ago could ask pertinent questions on this issue to help public understanding when there is a clear conflict between the science/facts and their own belief.
If you read my earlier link to yesterdays Telegraph article written by someone who declares themselves to be a committed Christion and still finds Dan Walker's "creationism is an affront to reason, science and logic".
For this reason I do not feel he is the right person for the job. Fine sports reporter and personable seeming chap, though he may be.
-
Dear John,
The man is on the Chris Evans show as we speak, he is wondering what all the fuss is about, he asks, is Britain a tolerant society, does it matter what your religious thinking is.
Gonnagle.
-
He's a presenter reading an autocue so his personal views shouldn't come into it and shouldn't matter. If he attempts to vocalise them then his employers should point out he is representing the BBC not there to represent his own views and take disciplinary actin if necessary. If they didn't I think it would be this that would effect the BBC's reputation.
While that is broadly true I think the Breakfast programme is more 'conversational' than, say a standard news bulletin, and therefore has more opportunity for the presenter to stamp their personality on the role, and that might include their own personal views.
The BBC should be careful about ensuring that his creationist views (which are indeed extreme) aren't promulgated on the programme - even is a rather 'soft' way in a manner that would affect impartiality.
This isn't the only headache the BBC has over impartiality - there is currently a debate waging over the team of senior political correspondents and presenters, who seem to be disproportionately right wing and often from exactly the same elite group who currently run the country. Concerns have been raised over Nick Robinson getting the role on the Today programme.
Also the rather odious chummy, chummy interview of David Cameron (in his kitchen) before the general election by the BBC Deputy Political Editor James Landale which came across as if they were old school chums ... until you realised that they were old school chums.
The BBC needs to take care.
-
Dear John,
The man is on the Chris Evans show as we speak, he is wondering what all the fuss is about, he asks, is Britain a tolerant society, does it matter what your religious thinking is.
Gonnagle.
Gonners
Sounds to me like the beeb are responding to criticism and are attempting a damage limitation exercise!
"does it matter what your religious thinking is" ?
Er, yes .......think Jihadi John, schools that ban teaching about science, sex, etc.
-
News presentation is different to sports or the arts when you consider the nature of the interviews that form a big part of the content. I've read some of his views (particularly about unbelievers going to hell) and I just don't think he's right for the job - he will have some very sensitive interviews to conduct and IME a belief in damnation for those not in God's club and sensitivity don't go hand in hand.
-
Somewhat torn on this one.
On the one hand, his private beliefs in principle ought not to matter (leaving aside the fact that since we're discussing him they're anything but private). His job is to scrub up well in front of a camera and read what somebody else puts on an autocue.
On the other hand, his beliefs are inescapably weird fringe beliefs; and as john has pointed out in #12, with something like the discovery of gravitational waves, the fact that we know what his beliefs are entails that were he to conduct an interview with a willing scientist trying to explain what it's all about to people at home still drinking their coffee, we're going to be aware that he's discussing a matter that he considers to be a rank fiction.
A bit of a cock up all round, really.
ETA: Funniest comment on the Scaly Mail website was from someone who wrote: "He keeps the Sabbath but what if one of his kids gets sick on a Sunday? Who's he gonna call - Ghostbusters?"
-
News presentation is different to sports or the arts when you consider the nature of the interviews that form a big part of the content. I've read some of his views (particularly about unbelievers going to hell) and I just don't think he's right for the job - he will have some very sensitive interviews to conduct and IME a belief in damnation for those not in God's club and sensitivity don't go hand in hand.
The problem is always when the reporter becomes the story, as seems to be the case here.
There is also the issue about the fact that his pretty extreme views are public knowledge and this perhaps undermines his ability to do the job. Reminds me of the late, great Brian Redhead - a continual thorn in the side of politicians of all persuasions through the 1980s as presenter on the Today programme. Famously on one occasion he was accused of political bias by Nigel Lawson who suggested he was a Labour voter. Redhead quipped back:
'Do you think we should have a one-minute silence now in this interview, one for you to apologise for daring to suggest that you know how I vote ...'
The point being that Redhead kept his actual private political views just that, private, so he couldn't easily be accused of bias in the manner that Nick Robinson (ex young conservative) or Justin Webb can (however well they do their jobs), and indeed the same problem now applies to this guy, albeit not in terms of party political, but religious bias.
-
It also puts me in mind of Glen Hoddle and his wacky views.
It did not help him while he was England manager.
-
Dear Rhiannon and John,
Yes it does seem a strange choice, trying to get my head around the question, should it really matter, but the man will be the face of breakfast telly, what if he has to interview someone like Stephen Fry, a man not backwards at coming forward in religious matters, it will make interesting telly.
I don't agree with his YEC nonsense but does that matter, he did state on the Chris Evans show that he wants to live in a society where a young Muslim girl could grow up to be a great journalist.
Yes a very strange choice by the BBC, one to watch, hell maybe that is their masterplan :o
Gonnagle.
-
I don't agree with his YEC nonsense but does that matter, he did state on the Chris Evans show that he wants to live in a society where a young Muslim girl could grow up to be a great journalist.
Very few people don't want that; but it's a deflection from the issue of whether his views are going to stand in the way of impartiality.
-
Gonners reports;
he did state on the Chris Evans show that he wants to live in a society where a young Muslim girl could grow up to be a great journalist.
What a disgraceful and disingenuous statement that is. To my knowledge there are already lots of such people working as journalists both male and femail (see Al Jazeera for starters) or as media presenters. And rightly so. Take Professor Jim Al Khalil for instance physicist and documentary presenter, what an interesting chat the two could have about "creation". Pity though that the nice prof would still be condemned to burn in hell for eternity for not accepting Jesus as his personal savoir.
-
My big concern is his views on hell and salvation, mostly because I've met a few with similar views and seem the damage they can do. He thinks it is a good thing that he was scared into these beliefs when only twelve by a Baptist preacher. If he believes he is directed' to try to save the souls of those he meets in the course of his work - some of whom may be quite vulnerable - then his perceived duty to god will inevitably outweigh any agreement with his employers about religion in the workplace .
-
My big concern is his views on hell and salvation, mostly because I've met a few with similar views and seem the damage they can do. He thinks it is a good thing that he was scared into these beliefs when only twelve by a Baptist preacher.
... and doesn't appear to have revisited or re-evaluated them at any point since.
-
I would have thought it would have been important for a presenter or journalist to be in tune with his audience.
If he can present something and do that I don't suppose it matters, however there is always the chance he won't recognise when he isn't.
-
I would have thought it would have been important for a presenter or journalist to be in tune with his audience.
If he can present something and do that I don't suppose it matters, however there is always the chance he won't recognise when he isn't.
Very true.
Given the nature of the programme and the fact that scientific stories make headline news fairly regularly, he's now going to feel under especial scrutiny every time one such news item arises. Which may in fact be no bad thing for him - it may serve to keep him on his tootsies -, but he won't be unaware that there will be no small number of viewers sitting at home thinking: "But you think the planet is 6,000 years old!"
-
Which immediately trashes the credibility of the programme.
-
Very true.
Given the nature of the programme and the fact that scientific stories make headline news fairly regularly, he's now going to feel under especial scrutiny every time one such news item arises. Which may in fact be no bad thing for him - it may serve to keep him on his tootsies -, but he won't be unaware that there will be no small number of viewers sitting at home thinking: "But you think the planet is 6,000 years old!"
Which is why it is better (in a Brian Redhead sense) that those being interviewed and those at home watching or listening aren't able to think that - in other words that the presenter or report's personal and private views remain just that, personal and private.
Now he may well be fine, but there will forever be a question mark on his ability to carry out such interviews if people know he thinks the basic idea is junk. Remember just yesterday the biggest news story was gravitational waves, detected because of events that occurred over a billion years ago. If we know that the person covering that news story thinks that the universe is only 6000 years old is his credibility not seriously undermined.
-
Which immediately trashes the credibility of the programme.
I don't know - his credibility, certainly, and possibly that of whoever hired him. The programme is bigger than any one presenter and will be around long after he's gone.
We enjoy freedom of religion in this country - lots don't - and the man is perfectly entitled to believe whatever ludicrous, reality-denying beliefs he chooses to entertain as a private individual. (Though given the age at which he came by them, the word 'choice' is moot). I don't want this to come across as any sort of witch-hunt or any kind of infringement of his freedom of belief. But given the nature of his occupation it's inevitable that there's going to be some sort of serious cognitive dissonance at work.
-
I don't know - his credibility, certainly, and possibly that of whoever hired him. The programme is bigger than any one presenter and will be around long after he's gone.
We enjoy freedom of religion in this country - lots don't - and the man is perfectly entitled to believe whatever ludicrous, reality-denying beliefs he chooses to entertain as a private individual. (Though given the age at which he came by them, the word 'choice' is moot). I don't want this to come across as any sort of witch-hunt or any kind of infringement of his freedom of belief. But given the nature of his occupation it's inevitable that there's going to be some sort of serious cognitive dissonance at work.
Maybe it's just me but if I'm seeing an interviewer nodding along with a guest I like to think he or she isn't thinking that the subject matter is complete bollocks.
I think this is down to the move from sports media to news media. One doesn't really require any credibility on the part of the presenters. The other does - in spades. There are theists who work or have worked in news media and retained their credibility and that of their outlets - Jeremy Vine and Ian Hislop being obvious examples. It's purely because Dan Walker's views are so fringe even for most Christians that this has created such a stir.
-
Good point. (IIRC Ian Hislop describes himself as a part-time theist - sometimes he is, sometimes he isn't. But you're certainly right about Jeremy Vine).
-
Maybe it's just me but if I'm seeing an interviewer nodding along with a guest I like to think he or she isn't thinking that the subject matter is complete bollocks.
I think this is down to the move from sports media to news media. One doesn't really require any credibility on the part of the presenters. The other does - in spades. There are theists who work or have worked in news media and retained their credibility and that of their outlets - Jeremy Vine and Ian Hislop being obvious examples. It's purely because Dan Walker's views are so fringe even for most Christians that this has created such a stir.
Yes it isn't him being religious - so are loads of people. It is that his views are particularly extreme and, if he is advocating hell and damnation, rather offensive.
-
Yes it isn't him being religious - so are loads of people. It is that his views are particularly extreme and, if he is advocating hell and damnation, rather offensive.
I find this sort of thing extremely disturbing and saddening:
The son of a Baptist preacher, Walker – who grew up in Crawley, West Sussex – has been a regular churchgoer all his life.
But he did not become devout until he was 12, when a preacher told him about 'the reality of hell for the unbeliever'.
Walker said: 'I remember sitting there feeling a deep conviction of sin and terror at the prospect of hell. I knew that I was offending God with the way I was acting and the life I was living, and the prospect of going to hell terrified me.'
I am on record as having said in the past, more than once, that children and religion go together like children and depleted uranium shells. This is why. What the actual fuck? Maybe I'm too old and out of touch - I want to think of twelve year-olds riding their bikes, making a nuisance of themselves with their mates, looking at pictures of ladies with no clothes on with their computers (the lads especially) and generally being twelve year-olds, not convicted of sin and terrified of hell.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Never knew Jeremy Vine was religious.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4277439/Christians-are-becoming-social-pariahs-in-Britain-claims-Jeremy-Vine.html
In an interview with Reform, a magazine published by the United Reformed Church, Mr Vine says that he is forced to separate his personal beliefs from his role as a presenter.
Tony Blair revealed in 2007 that he had been unable to be open about his faith when Prime Minister for fear that people would label him a "nutter".
>:( >:( Your faith Mr Blair is only a small part of why we think you are a nutter.
Gonnagle.
-
This covers most of my opinion.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2016/02/dan-walkers-creationism-may-be-an-affront-to-science--but-hes-entitled-to-his-beliefs
-
Good point. (IIRC Ian Hislop describes himself as a part-time theist - sometimes he is, sometimes he isn't. But you're certainly right about Jeremy Vine).
Yes - Hislop said something along the lines of sitting in church one week thinking 'this is all bollocks' and the next 'this is all there is'. Which isn't uncommon especially among Anglicans.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Never knew Jeremy Vine was religious.
His brother is the comedian Tim Vine (who makes me laugh like a drain, but that's just me) and is also one of the few Christian stand-up comedians. (Milton Jones is the only other one I know of, who also has me in histrionics).
>:( >:( Your faith Mr Blair is only a small part of why we think you are a nutter.
More to do with the fact that his actions pretty comprehensively deny, reject, abjure and contradict any and every part of it >:(
-
I find this sort of thing extremely disturbing and saddening:
I am on record as having said in the past, more than once, that children and religion go together like children and depleted uranium shells. This is why. What the actual fuck? Maybe I'm too old and out of touch - I want to think of twelve year-olds riding their bikes, making a nuisance of themselves with their mates, looking at pictures of ladies with no clothes on with their computers (the lads especially) and generally being twelve year-olds, not convicted of sin and terrified of hell.
Yes, same quote I read from him. Not good. :(
-
This covers most of my opinion.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2016/02/dan-walkers-creationism-may-be-an-affront-to-science--but-hes-entitled-to-his-beliefs
I read that this morning and thought it was one of the best, fairest and most even-handed and gracious comments on the whole business.
What Vlad, who sees the NSS as Stalinist philosophical materialist anti-theist HQ, will make of it I dread to think.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Never knew Jeremy Vine was religious.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4277439/Christians-are-becoming-social-pariahs-in-Britain-claims-Jeremy-Vine.html
Reading the article, I think the whole point is about professionalism.
If I am a football commentator I may well support a particular team, but my professionalism means I must not let that cloud my judgement as a commentator.
As a political reporter I may well have particular political views, but my professionalism means I must not let that cloud my judgement as a commentator.
Likewise for someone with particular religious views.
That said there are, of course, situations where people are brought in specifically to give their views (op ed pieces) and then that's OK, but there needs to be balance in the broadcast media so we would be rather concerned if all the political personal views were from tories, and likewise we should be concerned if all the religious views come from theists.
But in his role on breakfast show, or Vine's he is there as an impartial reporter and must not allow his personal opinions to cloud the professional requirements of the job.
-
Milton Jones is the only other one I know of, who also has me in histrionics
So when you see him on the telly, you get offended and react in an excessive way?
He just makes me laugh.
-
If I am a football commentator I may well support a particular team, but my professionalism means I must not let that cloud my judgement as a commentator.
Coughalan coughgreen
-
Dear Shaker,
Tim Vine is his brother ;D ;D that guy cracks me up, ;D
So I went in to a pet shop. I said, "Can I buy a goldfish?" The guy said, "Do you want an aquarium?" I said, "I don't care what star sign it is."
source: http://jokes4us.com/peoplejokes/comedianjokes/timvinejokes.html
His patter is just so stupidly funny it borders on genius, and he is a Christian ;D ;D
So this bloke says to me, "Can I come in your house and talk about your carpets?" I thought "That's all I need, a Je-hoover's witness".
Gonnagle.
-
His brother is the comedian Tim Vine (who makes me laugh like a drain, but that's just me) and is also one of the few Christian stand-up comedians. (Milton Jones is the only other one I know of, who also has me in histrionics).
Frank Skinner's a practicing RC.
-
Frank Skinner's a practicing RC.
Yes, you're right! That one temporarily slipped my memorial.
-
So when you see him on the telly, you get offended and react in an excessive way?
He just makes me laugh.
Dough.
-
Dear Shaker,
Milton Jones
The Pope loves cats, he is a cat a holic
:P :P
Sorry! sorry, serious thread, normal service will now be resumed. :-[
Sorry again, just one more Tim Vine, well it is Friday.
You see my next door neighbour worships exhaust pipes, he's a catholic converter.
Gonnagle.
-
My other grandad was very sick so we rubbed his back with margarine. After that, he went downhill fast.
-
Hope
Here you are today's Telegraph says " Dan Walkers creationism is an affront to reason, science and logic.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/12152098/Dan-Walkers-creationism-is-an-affront-to-reason-science-and-logic.html
Thanks for that, john. I've been without internet much of today, so wouldn't have been able to catch up with the issue even had I'd had the time.
Perhaps they will soon appoint David Icke as science correspondent !
Seem to remember that ITV have already done that.
-
News presentation is different to sports or the arts when you consider the nature of the interviews that form a big part of the content. I've read some of his views (particularly about unbelievers going to hell) and I just don't think he's right for the job - he will have some very sensitive interviews to conduct and IME a belief in damnation for those not in God's club and sensitivity don't go hand in hand.
He's not the first Christian to hold such a role - don't recall previous presenters (not merely BBC TV's) having any problems despite sharing that particular understanding. One could suggest that atheists should not be presenters because of 'some very sensitive interviews (they have) to conduct'.
-
"Do you know Marie Osmond is about to appear in the world's worst film?"
"Warner Brothers?"
"I already have!"
-
He's not the first Christian to hold such a role - don't recall previous presenters (not merely BBC TV's) having any problems despite sharing that particular understanding. One could suggest that atheists should not be presenters because of 'some very sensitive interviews (they have) to conduct'.
Such as?
-
He's not the first Christian to hold such a role - don't recall previous presenters (not merely BBC TV's) having any problems despite sharing that particular understanding.
Where is the comparable prior situation? Or who, rather? Which "understanding" are you referring to? Creationism isn't an understanding; it's a belief. (And is the polar opposite of understanding, while we're about it). Theism itself isn't an understanding but a belief, come to that, as most vaguely sane theists are content to acknowledge. Where is the other TV presenter who thinks in the teeth of all scientific knowledge that the Earth was supernaturally created before the development of agriculture in the human species having to interview real scientists talking about actual science, as Walker will have to before very much more time has passed?
One could suggest that atheists should not be presenters because of 'some very sensitive interviews (they have) to conduct'.
One could suggest it, but it would be a quite remarkably stupid thing for one to suggest.
-
"Do you know Marie Osmond is about to appear in the world's worst film?"
"Warner Brothers?"
"I already have!"
That's brilliant.
-
I agree, he should be judged by his actions rather than (what we think are) his beliefs, but one could imagine problem scenarios ahead. How would he handle a guest appearance by Richard Dawkins :o
Like everybody else, bow, scrape and fawn.
-
That's brilliant.
I hope that Thrud likes it as well!
-
I hope that Thrud likes it as well!
What's not to like?
-
He's not the first Christian to hold such a role - don't recall previous presenters (not merely BBC TV's) having any problems despite sharing that particular understanding. One could suggest that atheists should not be presenters because of 'some very sensitive interviews (they have) to conduct'.
I may be wrong but I certainly don't remember another situation involving a known young earth creationist in such a role. The point isn't that he is a mainstream christian (there are loads of those in such roles) but that his personal views are to such an extreme end of the spectrum, and based on dogma rather than reason/evidence that raises questions about his ability as a journalist, reporter and interviewer.
And I come back to my earliest point about there being a problem when the reporter becomes the news. This is clearly the case here and the BBC may be regretting their decision. He will need to be very careful not to bring his very extreme views into his professional role. If he doesn't then all will be well. If he does or they undermine his credibility as a reporter then there will be a problem.
-
I may be wrong but I certainly don't remember another situation involving a known young earth creationist is such a role.
And I come back to my earliest point about there being a problem when the reporter becomes the news. This is clearly the case here and the BBC may be regretting their decision. He will need to be very careful not to bring his very extreme views into his professional role. If he doesn't then all will be well. If he does or they undermine his credibility as a reporter then there will be a problem.
The best scenario would be that he is sacked by the BBC who he sues for millions.
Richard Dawkins then phones up the BBC to ask when to turn up at Salford for his new show only to be told that it is cancelled because the money went to compensate Dan Walker..................Dawkins is then only allowed back on the Beeb if he is prepared to wear
a white rally drivers suit, a helmet with a black visor and is prepared to hang around in motor themed venues.
-
The best scenario would be that he is sacked by the BBC who he sues for millions.
Richard Dawkins then phones up the BBC to ask when to turn up at Salford for his new show only to be told that it is cancelled because the money went to compensate Dan Walker..................Dawkins is then only allowed back on the Beeb if he is prepared to wear
a white rally drivers suit, a helmet with a black visor and is prepared to hang around in motor themed venues.
I may be wrong, but I don't think Richard Dawkins is a regular on BBC tv - certainly not in terms of his own shows in the manner of Brian Cox or some of the tele-historians.
I think the BBC have largely shied away from giving him his own show - mostly he has worked for Channel 4 I think.
-
I may be wrong, but I don't think Richard Dawkins is a regular on BBC tv - certainly not in terms of his own shows in the manner of Brian Cox or some of the tele-historians.
I think the BBC have largely shied away from giving him his own show - mostly he has worked for Channel 4 I think.
Indeed. He did the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for the BBC as far back as 1991 (that's a quarter of a century, Vlad), and although I can't immediately call any other examples to mind I suppose it's quite possible he's been a talking head on other BBC programmes; but his very few appearances on the lunatic lantern in his own right since then have been for Channel 4.
Incidentally, did anybody else know - I didn't until I just Googled him - that he's just suffered a stroke?
https://goo.gl/W3RUua
-
Incidentally, did anybody else know - I didn't until I just Googled him - that he's just suffered a stroke?
Yes I knew that, it was reported on both Pharyngula and WEIT. It's apparently only minor and he is expected to make a near full recovery.
I'm surprised Vlad isn't on to it already given how much he is in love with the man.
-
Yes I knew that, it was reported on both Pharyngula and WEIT. It's apparently only minor and he is expected to make a near full recovery.
I'm surprised Vlad isn't on to it already given how much he is in love with the man.
I stopped visiting Pharyngula after the Michael Shermer affair, never been back since on principle, and haven't dropped by Jerry's place yet today.
-
I stopped visiting Pharyngula after the Michael Shermer affair, never been back since on principle,
I still have my RSS feed which I monitor because the frequent road crashes are quite entertaining. Pharyngula long since stopped being relevant in any meaningful way.
-
I believe the bedazzling Dan was talking about new species of T Rex today, didn't see it, how did he do?
-
I believe the bedazzling Dan was talking about new species of T Rex today, didn't see it, how did he do?
Didn't seem to disturb him - but the main discussion isn't until later.
-
Anybody know how no-dinosaurs Dan has done?
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/creationist-dan-walker-looks-uncomfortable-7558665
Not my opinion as I didn't watch it.
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/creationist-dan-walker-looks-uncomfortable-7558665
Not my opinion as I didn't watch it.
Can't say that he looked any more uncomfortable (in the short clip from the mirror website) than Charlie or some of the other presenters when they have to sit and let the other presenter do all the talking.