I AGREE with Andy Maciver’s view of the BBC and its future ("If we care about democracy, it’s time to cut BBC’S cord", The Herald, April 16). Mr Maciver outlines the difficulty for newspapers in current times and while I realise that it may be an over-simplification on my part, I have the clear impression that those producing reports on TV and radio are mostly alerted to these stories after newspapers have done the work only to be leap-frogged overnight in reaching the public.

But my stronger agreement with Mr Maciver is that any expectation that the BBC will deliver an unbiased service is a concept from a past age, bearing no resemblance to reality. While the new charter requires the BBC "to raise awareness of different cultures and alternative viewpoints that make up society", it also expects the BBC "to help contribute to the social cohesion of the UK". Given that latter requirement, why should we expect the BBC to be anything other than partial on the constitutional question?

John C Hutchison, Fort William.

ONE has to admire Andy Maciver's candidness and boldness this week in offering his appraisal of two institutions, the NHS and the BBC, widely regarded as among the most important and admired in our society.

While I suspect from the content and tone of his remarks I would have very little, politically and ideologically, in common with Mr Maciver he makes one comment which I do agree with. This concerns the growing tendency of television interviewers to intrude their own views and opinions when asking questions of interviewees. As Mr Maciver's piece points out, this has serious implications for impartiality, especially the BBC's. I have often wondered why this relatively recent practice has developed and can only imagine it has something to do with the gaining of Twitter followers.

Another disturbing tendency is for guests to be introduced and referred to by their forenames. Of course in the 1960s and 70s the astute Harold Wilson turned the tables on the formidable Mr Day by addressing him as "Robin", thus attempting to dilute the searching nature of the great interviewer's questions. This was part of the cut and thrust of the political interview and had no bearing on matters of impartiality.

Brian Harvey, Hamilton.

I HAVE just a couple of questions for Andy Maciver after his article on scrapping the TV licence and cutting the BBC adrift. If I want to watch live football on television at home I am compelled to pay a company like Sky or BT close to £100 per month. In what way is this better than a television licence tax of £12.88 per month? And would Andy Maciver describe Fox New as "plural, modern and vibrant"?

£12.88 per month is a small price to pay for preventing the likes of Rupert Murdoch and his ilk from dominating our press and television.

John Jamieson, Ayr.