Brian and PTL- I think you’re merely disagreeing over the scale of the coverage, which yet again substantiates my point about what’s so patently ridiculous about the idea of a public service broadcaster: nobody agrees on what coverage is in the public interest and what isn’t (there’s no “collective will” Brian!). If neither of you were forced to pay for the BBC, then neither of you would care to what extent it covered Lambeth or anything else; you’d simply watch if you were interested and tune out if you weren’t. As it stands, you both have legitimate complaints because you believe coverage on this and coverage on that is too excessive or is underrepresented, etc. – and they’re using money that was taken from you forcibly to do it.

As to the question of covering Lambeth, I think Will was fulfilling the purpose of this blog, his broadcasting diary. As a blogger myself I know that interest in what I’m writing about shifts constantly, and I’m sure traffic on W&T has been steady.

By the way, PTL, humanists provide an interesting perspective on ethics discussions, and although I wonder if it couldn’t often just as easily be represented by ‘atheists’ rather than by representatives of a ‘humanist’ worldview, their input can be extremely valuable in a program like Sunday Sequence, for example. (And they’re not disproportionally represented if you ask me.)