HERE'S TO THE DOUBTING THOMAS ON THE NEWSDESK - 🗞️📰

Report by Duncan Williams 

As journalists, the pursuit of truth is at the heart of our work. We strive to uncover the facts, to report them honestly and accurately, and to hold those in power accountable for their actions. In this pursuit, doubt can be a useful and even necessary trait.

I say this as someone who has had a rollercoaster ride of a journalistic career and has worked on everything from local newspapers to national splash tabloids to Christian good news magazines. Having doubt is no bad thing.

First and foremost, doubt helps us to avoid confirming our own biases. We all have preconceived notions and beliefs that can colour our perceptions and lead us astray. By maintaining a healthy dose of skepticism, we can challenge our assumptions and ensure that we are not simply reporting what we want to hear.

Furthermore, doubt can help us to be more thorough in our reporting. When we encounter a piece of information that seems too good to be true, our instinct may be to run with it and publish it immediately. But by questioning the veracity of that information and digging deeper to confirm its accuracy, we can avoid spreading misinformation and damaging our credibility.

Doubt also allows us to be more open-minded in our reporting. As journalists, we often encounter complex issues with no easy answers. By maintaining a sense of doubt and uncertainty, we can approach these issues with a willingness to listen to multiple perspectives and to consider all the available evidence before drawing conclusions.

Paradoxically, doubt can also serve as a powerful motivator for our work. By acknowledging that we don't know everything and that there is always more to learn, we can stay curious and driven to uncover new information and tell stories that matter.

Of course, there is a danger in allowing doubt to overshadow our work. Too much skepticism can lead to paralysis, preventing us from making decisions and taking action. But when doubt is used in the right way, as a tool to challenge our assumptions and push us to be more thorough and open-minded in our reporting, it can be an invaluable asset for any journalist.

So in my experience in news reporting, skepticism and doubt are not weaknesses for a journalist, but a necessary part of the pursuit of truth. By staying curious, open-minded, and willing to question our own assumptions, we can ensure that our reporting is accurate, thorough, and serves the public interest.

COULD ROBOT TECHNOLOGY REPLACE YOUR LOCAL VICAR?

Report by Duncan Williams @ViewNewsUK

As technology advances and becomes more integrated into our daily lives, it's natural to wonder what role it may play in our spiritual practices.

One area of possible interest is the idea of using AI (artificial intelligence) robot technology to create digital church ministers, capable of hearing online confessions and delivering religious sermons. Perhaps even hosting religious programmes and faith themed media events. Like a sort of non-existent but visible video vicar.

While this may seem like a futuristic and 'exciting' possibility, it's important to consider the potential drawbacks and limitations of relying on AI for such important roles.

One of the main reasons why an AI robot priest is unlikely to be as popular as a human being is the lack of emotional connection and empathy that they can provide. As humans, we naturally crave connection and understanding, especially when it comes to our spiritual lives. When we confess our sins or seek guidance from a religious leader, we want to feel heard and understood on a deep, emotional level. While an AI robot may be able to provide logical and rational advice, it cannot offer the same level of emotional connection that a human minister can.

Another potential limitation of using robots in this capacity is their inability to interpret the nuances of human behaviour and language. When delivering a sermon or counselling someone, a human minister can pick up on subtle cues such as body language, tone of voice, and facial expressions, which can inform their response and help them to better understand the person they are speaking with. An AI robot, on the other hand, may not be able to interpret these nuances as effectively, leading to a less meaningful and impactful interaction.

Also, there is the question of authenticity. When we attend church or seek guidance from a religious leader, we are often looking for a sense of authenticity and sincerity. We want to feel that the person we are speaking with truly believes in what they are saying and is genuinely invested in our well-being. It's difficult to imagine an AI robot being able to convey this same level of authenticity, as their responses are predetermined and programmed, rather than coming from a place of personal conviction and belief.

Of course, it's worth noting that there are possible benefits to using AI robots as ministers. They may be able to offer a more consistent and reliable experience, for example, or provide a level of objectivity that human ministers may struggle with. They might also alleviate the burdens of an overly busy church leader, freeing up their time to focus on other forms of outreach. 

However, it's important to weigh these potential benefits against the obvious limitations and drawbacks any rudimentary theologian would express. The connection with divinity surely requires human intercedence. Isn't this, after all, the pivotal reason why the Christian God offered salvation to man in the person of a real human being in the first place?

Moreover, if an AI robot is programmed to provide specific religious teachings or advice, what happens if those teachings conflict with the beliefs or values of the person seeking guidance? Who is responsible if an AI robot provides harmful or damaging advice? These are complex and important ethical questions that must be carefully considered before we might seriously consider implementing AI robots as church ministers.

In the end, while the idea of using robots as religious ministers may seem exciting and futuristic, it's important to approach this topic with caution and careful consideration. While technology can certainly offer benefits and enhancements to our spiritual practices, it cannot fully replace the emotional connection and authenticity that we seek in our interactions with religious leaders. Ultimately, the decision of whether to rely on AI robots in this capacity will depend on a variety of factors, including cultural attitudes towards technology, ethical considerations, spiritual needs and individual preferences and beliefs.

Some serious human discussion on this subject, sooner rather than later, can only be a good thing.

HAS THE LAST CALL ARRIVED FOR YOUR LOCAL PHONE BOX? 📞

The red public telephone box is an iconic symbol of British heritage and history. It would be a great shame if we lost them altogether, even if in an increasingly cashless society we seem to use them less and less.

First introduced in 1921, these telephone kiosks quickly became ubiquitous across the UK, and are still a familiar sight on many of our streets today.

In rural areas, including some parts of the South West of England, with poor mobile reception or signal drop-out, the phone box can still offer a vital means of communication.

The familiar design for the red telephone box was created by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, a prominent architect of the time. His design was selected from a competition held by the General Post Office (GPO), which was responsible for the country's telephone service at the time. The box was designed to be sturdy and weatherproof, with a distinctive domed roof and a bright red colour that made it easily visible on busy streets.

The first red telephone boxes were made of cast iron, with the distinctive red paintwork applied by hand. Over time, the design was refined, and later models were made of concrete and other materials. The interior of the box also evolved, with early models featuring a wooden shelf to hold the telephone directory, and later models featuring a metal shelf and a light bulb to illuminate the interior at night.

During World War II, many red telephone boxes were painted green to reduce their visibility and protect them from enemy bombing. After the war, they were gradually repainted in their original red colour, and new models were introduced with improved features such as automatic doors and push-button dialling.

Despite the rise of mobile phones and other communication technologies, the red telephone box remains an important part of British culture and heritage. Many of the older models have been preserved or restored, and some have even been converted into mini libraries, art installations, and other creative uses. There must be many other ways to keep them from rusting away into insignificance.

In recent years, there has been a growing movement to protect and preserve these iconic structures, with many communities campaigning to keep them in place even as the need for public telephones has dwindled. In recognition of their cultural significance, the red telephone box was granted Grade II listed status in 1985, and many individual boxes have also been listed as historic buildings.

Today, the red telephone box stands as a testament to the ingenuity and creativity of British design, as well as a symbol of the country's communications history and heritage. 

Whether they are used for their original purpose or repurposed for new uses, these iconic structures remain an important part of the English landscape, and a source of inspiration and pride for generations to come.

Use them don't lose them. We'd miss them if they all suddenly vanished.

In the event of your own town's red kiosk being threatened with disconnection as an active phone box, what novel ideas might you put forward that it could be usefully turned into? 

Report by Duncan Williams for @ViewFromUK