´óÏó´«Ã½

If newsreaders did this every week, then it would be much more of a problem, I think. But as it is, there's a fairly manageable tradition evolved - doing it once a year doesn't make that much of a difference. In fact it's just a bit fo fun. So what if the strict "news mask" slips once a year? (just don't let any of your newsreaders go on stricktly come dancing again!)

It is a bit of a fun for a very worthy cause. End of story, really.

Good old millionaire celebrities queuing up to tell us to give yet more money but refusing to give any themselves and insulting anyone who points it out. Bono and Bob Geldof, I'm looking at your hypocritical selves.

'News presentation needs to be about so much more than the reading of words.'

Of course, David, in this day and age it needs to be about dancing and prancing.. donning suspenders or a catsuit.. singing badly, miming worse.. and generally doing anything other than reading the news.

You're absolutely right to say that a Friday night doing all the above is perfect preparation for telling viewers on Monday about, say, another massacre in Iraq or British soldiers dying in Afghanistan.

And would the naysayers rather have a world without the spaghetti harvest or the Morecambe and Wise routine to There is Nothing Like a Dame?

The tradition of newsreaders joining in a sense of fun predates the first Children in Need telethon, David. All that's changed is that now they can appear on their own, without the comedians to provide the leads.

I have made my donation to Children in Need. I just feel unable to watch the television on the night in question. I can see the merit in talented entertainers giving their services to the ´óÏó´«Ã½. There are plenty of them who are quite unable to get any television air time. However, this love in that journalists have with each other is tedious.

While I am on the subject I hate the constant chatting amongst presenters about nothing that goes on during Breakfast. Chit chat and unnecessary false laughter is truly awful. Read the news and go home.

I’m not knocking CIN, it’s a good thing and without it many childrens lifes would be poorer. However, there’s a good argument that events like CIN, for all the good they do, simply paper over the cracks and let the people who should be dealing with problems facing children off the hook. Perhaps one year the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will dedicate an evening of their output to contrasting the life’s of the have and have nots…. Newsreaders could spend a few days living on the streets with homeless children to demonstrate they're multi dimensional human beings?

i have nothing against children in need in principle but i know how annoying it is for people how much it dominates the TV all night on the day.

IT would be nice to be able to turn on your TV and choose a channel that you don't get asaaulted by it if you don't want to see it. It doesn't bother me too much personally becuase i don't really watch the T.V but i know lots of people who moan about how theres 'nothing to watch' on children in need day, becuase it is very very boring TV. And it goes on and on and on......

I don't think there's anything wrong with newsreaders dressing up and playing a part like this. It show's that there's more to them than just the "serious newsman" side to them all. In fact, I look forward to the annual CIN debacle!

The other thing is... if newsreaders were to JUST read the news, we'd have never seen just how great a dancer Natasha Kamplinsky is - so it's not just CIN night that allows them to "let their hair down".

Your argument has two fatal flaws.

You claim that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ needs to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to "fulfil its role as a force for good in society". But this is not the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s role. The ´óÏó´«Ã½'s role is to provide that quality media output which society requires but which privately-owned organisations cannot affford. Nothing more. Going further than that is an abuse of your financing. We would all, for example, like to see polio eliminated, but if my local parish council voted to organise a vaccination campaign in India, the councillors would lay themselves open to surcharges to pay for it, not because such a campaign would be a bad thing in itself, but because this is not what parish councils are for. Similarly, "Childran in Need" clearly doesn't fall under your remit.

As for "comprehension, tone, empathy" etc, that's complete rubbish. What you're saying is that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should have lots of non-verbal communication from individual personalities, rather than being objective and factual. This is wrong in itself and is one of the things critics most object to as practice , because you use such things to put across personal points of views which are often based on emotion rather than fact, but which, being non-verbal, are deniable.

Both these problems arise from ego, from trying to elevate yourselves and your opinions above your role. You need more humility and to appreciate that you are paid to do a job not to indulge yourselves however worthy the cause.

Disagree with your comments about newsreaders. Listening to Radio 5 in the morning it is easy to discern the views of the male presenter. In fact, his questions often seem like a statement of his opinion and the question, in his mind, is more important than (the often shorter) answer. Twenty years ago I would have been horrified by suggestions of replacement of the licence fee: not now I am afraid. Despite the clear cultural benefits of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ you are weakening respect and diminishing yourselves by how much news and politics you devote time to and how you present it. Your editorial team should take note: you are not meant to be an agent of social change and perception management even if you think you are right and the end justifies the means.

I disagree with Jan Moir. She should have said, 'look at autocue, THINK, mouth words. . '
With the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s paranoia that someone might switch off, I notice that the computer program that obviously produces so much of the script has dropped a full stop.
Hence, ' and welcome to the Six O-clock News it was announced today . . '

For those who don't like to see news readers on Children in Need the answer is simple, don't watch it.

Sorry, but the annual newsreader sketches are usually self-indulgent twaddle. "See how funny we are?" they cry. "What's on the other side?" I cry back.

Good cause - yes.
Good television - no.

It does of course raise the question of why isn't the Government doing much more to help these children in the first place?

im all in favour of children in need i think its a great program for a good cause but the top gear part of the program i was appouled by as animal cruelty i am dead against and think the way them animals were treated was unnaceptable