Letter: Reviewers, royals and reptiles
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.'Right To Reply' is one of just five programmes which remain from the original Channel 4 schedule, as David Aaronovitch observes (Review, 2 November). However, it is inconceivable that this is for the reason he gives - "For 15 years now, the Eileen Tonkses of Britain have been afforded their tedious moment of complaint on Right To Reply".
This underestimates the achievements of a programme which has increased its ratings threefold and allows viewers to voice their concerns about important television issues and injustices. Among them are those who have unwittingly found themselves stars in fly-on-the-wall documentaries. This week Princess Diana's mother, Frances Shand Kydd, voiced her anger over the documentary Royals and Reptiles. David Aaronovich does viewers a disservice. Underestimating the audience is something which has won many TV producers an appearance on Right To Reply.
Jerry Foulkes
Editor, 'Right To Reply'
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments