Why do some television presenters get so much?

AS an old age pensioner, living on limited funds, I sometimes find myself reflecting on the huge fees and salaries paid to people whose employment is in no way linked to creating wealth.

This is not a case of envy, but simple

curiosity. It made sense to have paid the late John Wayne $10,000 a year in the 1930s to advertise the fact that he smoked Marlboro cigarettes.

Film stars such as Wayne, James Stewart, James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart and Ronald Colman were paid fortunes for the simple reason their names on a theatre marquee sold thousands of tickets.

So I ask myself if newsreaders, presenters and interviewers really deserve their huge incomes.

Do you turn on to see a specific newsreader or to learn the latest news? If a famous personality is being interviewed, do you turn on to see the interviewer or the personality being featured in the programme?

Some years ago a London agent told me that for every famous name he could find at least 20 unknown performers with far superior talent. This same agent once said, and I quote: “In our business, Colin, talent is helpful, luck is essential”.

On the rare occasion I was offered employment my agent always said, and again I quote: “The pay is Equity minimum.”

How thrilled I would have been if I was told just once they are paying an additional two shillings and six pence. Colin Bower, Nottingham