| AL: | Could you tell me some of your personal ideas as well as reflections on your work as a religious radio producer? What are the main programs at ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) or in the religious programming at ABC, and what are your own opinions about religious programs? |
Ronald
Nichols: | Perhaps just to tell my own story, I was always interested in religious broadcasting and in the ABC, and started that work in 1966, in Melbourne in Australia, because I had a passion, a strong urge to work in this field, to see how I could make fine programs on the churches and theologians and this has been my life's work.  And I've produced documentaries; I've produced music programs, liturgies, theological talks, literature, music, because I believe that the finest quality of work is what should stand up, and that if it's not good quality that it shouldn't be recognized. And so I've tried to use the best possible broadcasting principles in doing that... and it happens to be religion. And in my own work I've traveled to other countries, and won an award in some of that work: on the Anglican Bishops in England, the Lambeth Conference of all the bishops around the world; the World Council of Churches Assembly in Vancouver in 1983, and in Canberra in 1991. And I've also spent 2 years in Papua New Guinea in the early 70s, when the ABC was still there, because Papua New Guinea was a territory of Australia at that time. Independence came afterwards. And I was able to train a number of new broadcasters who had come in fresh, with no experience, to arrange programs for the ABC at that time, but also to work with others on what the new national broadcasting commission should be like. What it's model should be...overall. The big issue...to help draw up the charter, the guidelines. And then, for religious broadcasting in particular, I was invited back to Papua New Guinea after my term living there, to work with all the churches in forming a council of the Melanesian Council of Churches, but broader than that, to see how the National Broadcasting Commission of Papua New Guinea could use the churches for it's broadcasting, and that council exists. And it's a council that embraces the Catholics, the Lutherans, the United, the Anglicans and the Evangelical Alliance, but very broad...also Seventh-Day Adventists...so that they would respect each other without compromising their theological positions. And to provide broadcasting that contained common understandings. That council continues to exist, so I am very proud to have helped in the formation of that. Because it took an outsider to start it and then leave it to them. And so that's very much part of why I wanted to stay in religious broadcasting rather than move into general broadcasting. And I eventually became the head of the department four years ago. |
| AL: | So how many staff members do you have? |
| Nichols: | We have staff in most of the states: in New South Wales, in Queensland, Victoria, South Australia. Not Western Australia or Tasmania, but we used to once upon a time. So all in all about fifteen people. Not all full-time. We have five in Sydney. |
| AL: | So you are one of them. And I also found that you have a very nice set of archives there. It's for news or... |
| Nichols: | Yes, the tapes that we keep there are for back reference. Also for historical reference. So we can find the name of somebody who might have appeared ten, fifteen years ago. And it means that we can simply use them to compare and contrast views, or to hear a voice in a particular situation. And the archives department is set up by the commonwealth government, by our government. There's an act of parliament, it's very small, and the reason for it is to recognize that voice on tape, just like this, is part of history making. We are making history by you interviewing me, and so on. But the programs themselves are history. |
| AL: | So you are collecting those magazines not only from Australia but other countries as well? |
| Nichols: | Yes, but mainly Australia. |
| AL: | Do you have any religious news programs? |
| Nichols: | Yes, we don't call it news, but it is background news. That's once a week, on Wednesday, 30 minutes, and it would be maybe four interviews or four stories. Mainly Australian, but not always. It would be taking the issues, the topics farther than the ordinary news take them. It might be on an issue of the churches and politics, and we would ask more questions of those who are concerned with the issue. |
| AL: | In Japan we have some topics which are taboo, which the public and the media are very reluctant to talk about. Do you have anything like that? |
| Nichols: | There's no issue that's taboo, however you are quite right, some people say, I do not want to talk about that, but that's an individual...I don't think we've had any issue that's illegal. |
| AL: | How about the Hansen issue, the One Nation Party? Do you deal with all of the various perspectives? Did you deal with that issue in your program? |
| Nichols: | We tried to...it wasn't easy...we tried to be fair to both sides. But we found, when we dealt with that, that the churches were mainly against that person and that party. Only one or two church people-very conservative-said, "She's right." Mainly the churches said, "She's wrong," and in fact bishops and priests turned up at street marches, saying, "She's wrong," and they wore their collar. That was very strong. There are even some religious people who are politicians. There's a person called Fred Nile, and he's in the parliament in New South Wales. To begin with, we thought he might be on the same side as Pauline Hansen and the One Nation Party, but when he thought about it-he's a simple man-he had to say, when he was pressed hard, with hard questions, "No, I cannot follow her. I cannot agree with her." Had he said yes, I think that would have been a very dangerous thing for him to say. |
| AL: | But I heard that the reason what she says is so well supported is because there is such a high unemployment rate, and because of frustration among the blue collar workers regarding the government immigration policy. It is easy for the nation to victimize people with other skin colors. Is that social and economic situation still true? |
| Nichols: | I think that's a helpful question to be asked. I think, and I've heard others say the same thing, that the reason why she was listened to and followed to the extent she was-or is still, maybe-is that she appeals to simplistic, ignorant people. Now that's a pejorative statement of mine, but that's my view. I think that, as a public figure, she's putting forward very biased, very discriminatory, very simplistic views. Sometime we say that many topics or issues are gray; they're not black or white, because they're complex. And she's not complex. She says, "You are wrong. You are right." Normally she says, "I'm right. You're wrong." The transactional analysis. Not, "We are both right," or, "I understand." She never says, "I understand you. I appreciate you." She says, "You're wrong." So that for people who find it difficult to discuss and understand and listen, she appealed to them. She appealed to a lot of old people. A lot of old people who are hanging on to past values and who are looking for a public person to express their views. But they are views that are untested. |
| AL: | In your program, you said that you deal with this issue. Did you show each voice on the One Nation idea, or did you just criticize Pauline Hansen's idea? |
| Nichols: | No, we couldn't do that-but we could go to, say, a pastor or a bishop and ask what they think...something they may have already spoken from the pulpit, and ask them to repeat what they have said-we would not do that. |
| AL: | But how about balance? Because in your country there are other voices, Pauline Hansen's voice, do you also deal with this part too? |
| Nichols: | Yes, we would go to Pauline Hansen, or to her representatives and say, "We would like you to respond to what has been said. Here is the microphone. What would you like to say." And quite often Pauline Hansen would say, "I will not give an interview." And, in fact, for many months she would not speak to the ABC-anybody from the ABC. And, in fact, before the election she even had the police come to remove all journalists, because she wasn't prepared to be asked questions. Not just by the ABC, but by all journalists. And the police said, "Well, if this is a private meeting, we'll have to ask you to leave." |
| AL: | In order to balance, for instance, this specific issue, sounds very easy according to your example. Do you say, "You have five minutes, and they have five minutes." Do you give them equal amounts of time? |
| Nichols: | No, our guideline for the ABC say we don't have to do that. Except at election time. We have to give a report back minute-by-minute, so that if there are complaints, we can deal with the complaints. But generally, we say that we are unbiased, and we don't have to, in any one program, give equal time. Over many programs, we have to be able to demonstrate that we are being fair. But not minute-by-minute, no. |
| AL: | Talking about fairness. Especially about this kind of issue. It can be very difficult to be impartial. We have fairness doctrine, but maybe we cannot produce anything without bias. How do you manage to maintain fairness, especially with this kind of racial, economic issue? Because the producer has their own idea. For instance, you point out the views of advocates, but what about the views of more normal people? |
| Nichols: | Well, our rule in the ABC is if you are doubtful about something you are doing, if you have a question, or if you have a difficulty in making the program, you refer upward. If you don't, you are liable to take full responsibility for what has happened, for what has been said, or has not been said, or has been said badly. So that if, for example, there might be a question of liable or an accusation made that could be tested in law, in the court, you must refer upwards. |
| AL: | "Upwards" means what? |
| Nichols: | Upwards means in the hierarchy. In the ABC. |
| AL: | So you are the executive director, who are the others in the hierarchy? |
| Nichols: | Well, the station manager would be the next person, and if that person is not satisfied, it eventually goes to the managing director, who we call the chief editor. And there have been occasions recently, where the chief editor, the managing director, has to say on behalf of the worker way down here, "I think that person was wrong," or, "You are being unfair to that person; there was a genuine mistake made. So, that's how the ABC would deal with that kind of thing. But, the point is, that, generally, as a group of producers, with the executive producers, we meet and talk, and, say, the producer might come up with an idea, and say, "We want to speak with Pauline Hansen about what she had to say about aboriginal people, or migrants coming to Australia." And the producer would say, I would like to speak to her, and I would like to speak to her." And the executive producer or another member of the team might say, "That's not good enough. We need to go to a range of people." Now if Pauline Hansen doesn't want to speak, we then have to go on the air and say, "We approached Mrs. Hansen, but she declined. We must do that. And just to add my own personal feelings, sometimes it is appropriate for us to begin the program by saying, "I am an Anglican person. I needed to say that up front at the beginning, before we hear this program. Because by saying, "I'm an Anglican," or, "I have shares in a certain company," or I have a personal interest by marriage--something like that-in the person involved here, the audience must know. |
| AL: | Is there any difficult issue which has come up when you were producing? Or problems in the production process? |
| Nichols: | I think I can answer that. I can give several answers, but the one which comes to mind first of all, is a program about Scientology. That's very hard. And we tried, we made a program some months ago, a 50-minute program. We tried several times [to air it] but every time they attempt to take us to court. And worse than that, they take the ABC to court. They write long letters, many letters, but then they tackle the individual, and they harass the person that hurt them on the telephone. We get very frightened. |
| AL: | But in Germany, that organization cannot legally exist. How about Australia? |
| Nichols: | No, it is allowed. Because, the Scientologists went to the high court of Australia, the highest court, about 10 years ago, to have tested in court, whether Scientology is a church, and this high court found it is a church. So it is recognized. |
| AL: | So the problem about Scientology is that you have to deal with a court case. Why? Is it their strategy? |
| Nichols: | Yes, it's their strategy. They will not be questioned: We will not be scrutinized. We will not tolerate people who investigate. |
| AL: | Do their attitudes come from fearfulness of being seen by the public? |
| Nichols: | I don't know. Except that they work in a very subversive way; and they use individuals, film stars. And some of these people don't know what they are doing. I've seen them here working in Singapore. But certainly in Australia, they focus their work on young people on the street. They approach young people who look sad and lonely...vulnerable. And we see we have a work to do here in highlighting the way they work. We name the German case, and went to experts there on both sides, and yet they are still writing letters to us-this is six months later-long letters. And so, in that case, the producer came to me when she had the idea, and I said, "If you feel strong enough to do this, we will do it together." We did. And our management supported it. We had the programs checked, the tape recordings checked at the various stages of completion by our legal department to see what we could say and what we couldn't say. The management heard it before we broadcast. Then for a few days after the broadcast...silence. We couldn't believe it. And we had the leaders of Scientology, the leaders themselves in the program, and they thanked us for the opportunity. And then three of four days later the letter came. A long letter, from the leader of the Scientologists, which accused our producer of error, of gaps, and so, I said to the producer, "you must not respond. You must give this to me for management. You must take no telephone call. And you must not allow yourself to be exposed to questions or harassment by them. She found that very hard; she was in tears. |
| AL: | How about the program itself. The producer, did not tell her own opinion in that. She just interviewed the other groups which are against the Scientologists, right? |
| Nichols: | In the ABC's views, the producer was very fair to them. So she wasn't putting her own view forth, no. She was being a very professional journalist. And she in fact holds a doctorate in religious study, comparative religion. She is very, very well read. She is Australia's best academic in comparative religion and now a good broadcaster. That's her academic knowledge of Scientologists and a great range of religions, and so she wasn't going in ignorant. But it's very hard. |
| AL: | So, the court case is continuing now. |
| Nichols: | Well, I haven't spoken to her, but yes, they're still pressing. They may back off, I don't know. I hope they do. But my great fear was for the producer personally. |
| AL: | I don't know much about the Scientologists, because in Japan there are very few of them. |
| Nichols: | The other group, in Japan, the name, Aum. |
| AL: | Aum Shinrikyo? |
| Nichols: | Well I think they were linked to the [gas attack] at the railway station in Tokyo. Anyway, we attempted that as well. Not so difficult, but because I suppose language is a problem...to translate and make sure we are accurate, but one of our producers said, "We have to try to help Australians understand the sect and the leadership and the philosophy." So I mention those two to show that the range of issues and topics is endless, and we would not say that anything is taboo. It's just that some are hard. |
| AL: | The mass media is very weak in analyzing this issue, and one typical analysis is that they are brainwashing. And actually they are. But on the other hand, in general each religion has a richness. Maybe the difficult part is, as with your own faith, this richness and this brainwashing is somehow related to faith. |
| Nichols: | I think that's a fair point. In fact one of our producers and I had a discussion about that, and I think she was attempting to make a program how, in most religions, there is that "one way" teaching, and it's always been there, in some elements of all religions. The guru, the teacher says in effect, "Sit on the ground," (the teacher is up there), "Listen. Don't question. But receive." And I think that in Catholicism, in many of the religions we know in Australia, this is a fact in some elements. |
| AL: | Even Christianity in the first Century, it was the same thing as that, I mean it was a new sect. But now it's established in the mainstream. |
| Nichols: | Well, take one other example of a difficult one to tackle, would be the Roman Catholic church. When, as has happened recently, some priests have been called heretics, and have been excommunicated, we've attempted to go to the Vatican and ask questions about the process and what the accusations have been, theologically, and one of my predecessors is a priest who has been accused of heresy, Paul Collins, in my job. He preceded me, a Roman Catholic priest. He has written a number of books and made television and so on. And regarding two recent books, the Vatican has called him to Rome to answer questions. And he is quite smart. He said, "I will answer your questions in public." And they say, "No, you will come here in secret." And he says, "No, you have accused me in public; I will answer you in public." |
| AL: | You actually deal with this case in your program. It is very difficult. They want to be secret. You cannot get any answer from them. How do you deal with that? |
| Nichols: | I think, over a long period of time. We just hope that we'll be successful. We hope that by having the Vatican representatives appear in a program. Like the archbishop of Melbourne, maybe we can come to some point of getting things clear. But that's hard. So all we hear is Father Paul Collins views, not the other side. We have to be careful that it doesn't become personal. And there is an element of personal vendetta, personal attack between the archbishop and Father Paul Collins. We think that that element is here. Because the archbishop was appointed by the present pope just last year, and we think that he is being given the job of looking for heretics and Paul Collins is number one. |
| AL: | In the work of a religious journalist or communicator, he is to reveal, but on the other hand, maybe the established church, or religious organization somehow, because it's a religion as they need some authority in order to construct a church spiritually, typically. The journalist's vector is almost always pointed to the outside, to the public, but on the other hand in the church the top of the hierarchy, the interest is in how to become strong, in order to construct, for church growth. Almost always there is some conflicts, you know Star Chamber, in Britain, in the sixteenth century. During that time, the journalists were excommunicated because they were against the authority. I think there is still some element of conflict. |
| Nichols: | I think you're right. I've heard a number of journalists who are paid by the church, in newspapers and so on, to be told by the bishop, "You will not report this story." So the conflict is that there's a real tension, it's a dilemma that will never be solved. If you are a spokesperson, or paid by the church, how can you criticize the church? In the ABC, we've been very worried in recent years about the possibility of a threat by government to make the ABC commercial, because there is no commercial broadcasting in the ABC. We're worried, because if the ABC becomes commercial, there'll be that danger that the ABC won't be able to investigate without fear. For example, if a big oil company like BP...there is a problem, and if, in our big news program, decided to investigate, BP might say, "We are your sponsors." So that happens. The Australian people will lose their voice. And that's why, in religious broadcasting, the ABC's religious broadcasting service is so important. Because the churches can't, or the journalists of the churches can't ask the questions, but the ABC can, because it's independent. We're paid by the government, but the taxpayers. And so, we are not told by any bishop, any rabbi, anybody, "You can't do this." Many of us have been criticized by the churches...my own church. We can't do this. |
| AL: | What do you think, in the future, what is the main job for us, for ABC, or for religious communicators? |
| Nichols: | Well, I think some of the future is coming out through this week, actually, I see as particular countries, I speak of Australia, because that's my country, I suppose, I see us, I see our main work is development. What I mean by that is in assisting any person to simply understand, to be better educated in religion, theological values, ethics. So that people are left with a better foundation to make their own decisions. That's, I think, fundamentally what I'd like to see. So that people have a wide range of views of religious principles. And in Australia there are many...there are Buddhist, Muslim, Christian of various kinds, and so on. And non-religious, without religion. That's becoming increasingly followed. For a person to say after considering, "This is my view," with a good foundation. I think that's our role. Our main role. |
| AL: | In your religious department, you also deal with the non-religions. |
| Nichols: | Yes, it's written into our guidelines. We include the views of people with no religious views to engage the people of religious views. |
| AL: | What kind of perspective do you produce in that case? |
| Nichols: | Well, it would be in a magazine or a documentary program where a person would be, not necessarily from the atheist organization, but simply to say, "I don't belong to any religion, but this is my view." And we would name that. |
| AL: | How often would you deal with those viewpoints, with fairness in mind. Do you broadcast the same amount of opinions as those with religious faith? |
| Nichols: | No, we would just I think understand that we are giving that view a fair representation, not laid down in numbers or minutes, because the formal atheist view is quite small. Very few people say they are atheists |
| AL: | But according to the population figures, the churchgoers are a minority now. |
| Nichols: | It's hard to say yes or no to that one. About 70 percent of Australians say they belong to a form of religion. It doesn't mean they go to church or synagogue or mosque every week, but they say they believe. And maybe one thing I didn't do this week is to say something about that. What I've learned, and we talk about this in the ABC religious department quite a lot, is that we're dealing far less with the institution of religion and far more with belief. Belief that is post-institution. In other words, the institutions themselves are breaking down, but the faith systems are not. And that's quite significant. That's quite revealing. And so the institutions are breaking down, are closing, are not open, are drying up, along with other institutions-the boy scouts, some sporting clubs, a range of things that have been popular in the past-dying. And you see many church buildings closed, sold off, becoming eating places, or sold to other religions. But we say that we're not very afraid of that. What we're seeing, what we're observing, is that people are changing in the way they deal with their own religious belief systems. It doesn't depend on them putting on special clothes, or attending at certain times together. It simply means that people are now saying, "I can deal with my own beliefs, ethics, without having to do that." |
| AL: | So you think we have some substitute, instead of traditional religion. What is the substitute for the modern people? |
| Nichols: | Ah yes, there are new age religious movements, there are many of them. There are the games people play. The formal religions are being displaced by many, many new forms of spirituality, or what people call spirituality. And it may be just by the strength of a person's personality that a thing might come and go, come and go. So there a lot of fads. Short term interest. But in terms of sport, other entertainment, it's true that television is taking people away from attending religion. It's true in statistics that religion is followed more by young people, then there's a big gap when children arrive, and a return when people become old. But for those middle years, 20 to 40-50, not so much attention to religion. |
| AL: | I think maybe that when you produce, you need some rapport with other religions. If you have feelings of hate, or some negative feelings, it's very hard to be balanced, to be neutral in producing. But on the other hand, now it is becoming a secularized society. The domain which the church is able to effect is becoming smaller. How do you, as a producer, make some rapport? Maybe that's a very hard point: you may try to find out their real values, the meaning of existence for their organization, like a church, even if it's power to effect society is decreasing. How do you think about that? |
| Nichols: | Well, I was talking to Laurence Ko [the morning Bible-study leader at the WACC seminar] the other day, and we were, I suppose, agreeing that the pastor, the church official, the church as a body, is far less influential than it used to be. That's a fact. So that, in the old days, where the village, in English society, or European society, in the center of the village was a church and the priest was the only literate person, the only one. So the authority, the law, the literature, the interpretations...now the priest in terms of a point of reference in the community, is one of many. And so, in a congregation, you may find people who are far more expert, on a range of issues, than the pastor. And so, on a bigger lever, the churches, where they had a voice to government and the community, are now not just the only voice, but one of many. And so, I think this has caused a great deal of stress for the churches, and certainly for the pastors and bishops. "What is my job?" And so, I have seen lots of pastors fall away and become disillusioned, and experience loss of faith, because they don't have that central role they used to play. In terms of hate by individuals in the community of churches, well, I think that's always been so, in Australia, but I don't think that's become an issue in itself of concern. Certainly, people say it more openly than they used to, that's true. |
| AL: | So you think the present process for the church leaders is that of seeking their role, compared with the one they had 200 years ago. Their role is now very limited, and there are very few of their voices on the economy or on politics. |
| Nichols: | Well, I think it's more of a consultative role than an authoritative role. Less authority, more consultation, now. So they as individuals and their own personal qualities are what is being called on. |
| AL: | But maybe in the future, my own idea, the pastors or lay leaders, maybe their main job will become very limited, only a soul, spiritual-related job. What's your idea about that? |
| Nichols: | In my own church, there's been a big debate, just recently actually, about the ordained ministry. The future of it. In fact it's embodied in a debate about the Holy Communion service. Who may celebrate it? Only ordained people? Or may anybody do it on behalf of the community? |
| AL: | Your church is a Uniting church? |
| Nichols: | Anglican, with bishops, priests. And a lot of people are very threatened by this question, because the central words of the Eucharist are reserved, says the communion book, for the priests to say. Only the priests. But any other part, anybody can say: the prayers, the readings, and so on. And so, what is the function of the priest? Just to say two minutes of words each week? I'm being very simplistic about that. Or what? And this is a big question now, for the Roman Catholic church, and the Anglican church, and I suppose other churches as well. What is priest? What is pastor? What is the function of the ordained? And do you need to have a full-time ordained person anymore? Or can Takashi or go and do a work during the week and be recognized by the church for those communal worship times to rise up on behalf of the community and perform the priest or pastor function for a short time. |
| AL: | It comes from an economical standpoint, not a theological? |
| Nichols: | Yes, I think so. By force of circumstances. So that in country areas, rural areas, I think this is happening now. |
| AL: | This means that the areas which the ordained pastors control will be growing still smaller. |
| Nichols: | Yeah, that's right. It's a big question. Because it means that, perhaps, the time has come, because of economics circumstances, for the churches or religion to rethink what the nature of the religious community is, the community of faith is. The church maybe has to go back to the early church. The first hundred years, two hundred years of the early church, where the communities may say, the congregation may say, "Takashi, be our priest for a year." And then go back into the community, and then, "Ronald, you be our priest for a year." |
| AL: | I think that, especially the priests, the church leaders are very concerned about this, because of financial reasons. On the other hand, what do you think of that as a layperson? Has is become a real threat? Not only individually, but as a church. |
| Nichols: | I think that a lot of people are threatened by this sort of question, because people are now realizing that they have to think and deal with issues themselves, make judgements, ethical principals, instead of just going to the pastor, and saying, "What shall I do?" I'll have to consider what I should do myself. I think I experience that myself, to be very personal about it. In fact I would say that the priest means far less to me now, than the priest used to. |
| AL: | But I think that the reason you feel a threat does not come from the Bible, because in history, in the beginning in the Christian church, they didn't have any full-time ministers. So in that sense maybe there's nothing to fear for the organization. |
| Nichols: | Well, as Chandran was saying this morning about the lighthouse, and so you come back to the fundamentals. You build and build and build. It's like architecture. Simple architecture which has been embellished and decorated and decays, so I guess there's one thing that's being said a lot in Australia now: "Small is beautiful." Sell what you don't need. |
| AL: | So you think that in the future of religion in Australia, including the Christian churches, they will direct themselves that way? |
| Nichols: | Much simpler structures. |
| AL: | Is this on an individual level or with the church? |
| Nichols: | Well, that's a hard one for me to answer, because tradition and culture means a lot to me. And when I hear that things are destroyed because of economic circumstances or because it's politically incorrect to hold on to old values. I find that very hard. But to recognize we live in a changing society, maybe some things have to go. |
| AL: | It's a big challenge, now in the modern age. There are such big, drastic changes which the churches, religious organizations encounters. I really hope that our churches will chose a good direction. One which will enrich the individual religious faiths. |
| Nichols: | If it doesn't, I think we have this danger already in religion of post-modernism, if I understand that-it's a very difficult thing to understand-where so much is discarded and nothing replaces it of any value. That's what I would fear. And so, you have weddings, in the past, richly religious, now people go to parks and they dress up as if it's religious, and have styles and forms, but it's not. And even with funerals. You see funerals now celebrated by civil celebrants, not by pastors, or religious leaders, and so simply poems, and nice things are said about the person, but there's no vision of the afterlife. |
| AL: | So, is there anything you want to add, as far as programs in the future of religious journalism. |
| Nichols: | Well, I've seen them change all the time. And some of our programs have been maintained for many years-one has been there for more than thirty years: a documentary. It itself has changed, as a production that is, it changed. But I think that in the ABC, we've been forced to follow what the trend is generally, so it's not just our own programming. What suits the station's needs. And I hear the same thing happening in the BBC. And we can't go on doing the same thing forever. And I think for religious broadcasters, they (I'm one now, I suppose) must be ready to change. And to face up to the really hard reality that some people will not accept some kinds of broadcasting anymore. They seem to be old-fashioned or irrelevant, or just poor, poorly made. Excellence. |
previous
next 
