´óÏó´«Ã½

Dear Sir

having watched the news bulletins as well as the newsnight programmes in recent weeks, I started to feel increasingly uncomfortable about the unbalanced reports on the new EU members, Romania and Bulgaria. i was surpised to see that the reports focused on and presented only negative images about these countries in such a way that the information your viewers will have at the end, will always be a negative one. british viewers do need to know more about these countries and i am surpised that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ joins the rest of the populist british media in portraying scarymongering images about such little known countries. in the accompanying commentaries, there is just little mention of educated people and their realities but the images never show other than badly dressed people living on the outskirts of the society who will never consider emigrating to britain. through your reports, you are trying to convey an artificially created message brought about by populist media i.e these poor people will invade britain, and in so doing you are denigrating the dignity of millions of citizens in these countries, who do not recognise themselves in these visual reports and who will never have the chance to defend themselves. i take the view that so long there are british people flocking to buy houses, to make a living or holidaying in these countries, these countries may not be that bad but you never present all sides of the story and the full reality in these countries. these reports fail to be informative, they are interpreted biased pieces of information, insulting for so many citizens of these countries who come to be portrayed in such negative images by the ´óÏó´«Ã½; your reports are there to serve making the point that the world out there is bad and only britain is too good. ´óÏó´«Ã½ has the duty to cover areas related to the historical and cultural developments in the region of which there are so many and to explain issues that are not known at all by the british people and yet you play the populist tune. once again, i am afraid to say that, what you repeatedly show in your reports, is not the real story and i find the ´óÏó´«Ã½ attitude to choose this easy angle very offensive.

Many thanks

It would be easy to conclude from our regular news programmes that every country east of Gibraltar is inhabited by hooligans with long beards: usually waving rifles and burning effigies.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ should shut down its journalism. Its so-called news coverage is full of comments and innuendos. It is now interfering in the political process which is undemocratic. Elected MPs have less power than Panaroma. That is wrong. Lose the journalists, take agency feeds. Just report events and don't try to be part of them and save £millions in licence fee money at the same time. We want our democracy back.

I just watched David Kermode, editor of 'Breakfast' on Newswatch, defending the saturation coverage of Richard Hammond's crash and things like Beyonce's maple syrup diet success.
He told the complainant that this was ",,,not Tabloid Television, but what people are interested in." Then went on to describe how one can use the website to check on the most popular and most emailed stories, as if this were some guide as to what should roll at the top of the news.
This is practically a definition of "Tabloid Television". Don't prioritise news by importance, just by what will be the most popular with the masses.
Why, when the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is publicly funded, and not reliant on advertising revenue, does it have to chase ratings so relentlessly?
David Kermode should get the Kelvin Mackenzie award for turning the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Breakfast news coverage into a televisual equivalent of The Sun.

I wondered what the point was in having Amanda (?)on the programme to discuss news presenters. She was draconian and brooked not challenges to what she does. She did not even appear to be prepared to debate. In fact, I was appalled by her attitude. I took her point about name checks, but if a name acts as a signal to mark the end of a person's delivery, why does the recipient of the name check have to respond with the deliverer's name? Why do we have to introduce people, then give thier first names and then listen to the named person saying "Thank-you, Fred." That is taking good manners into the realms of farce. I, like the man in the video, find it artificial and contrived to have the news presenters standing at the beginning and end of news programmes. If they are in front of a screen for a specific reason, that is fine, but more often than not, they are standing there for the sake of it. I agree that they look gawky and awkward.

I tend not to write in about things, but the "I am right and everyone else is wrong" attitude that Amanda projected abosutely infuriated me. Listen, consider, debate AND THEN make up your mind!