Dear Sir George Russell: A programme-maker praised by the chairman of the Independent Television Commission is unimpressed by his verdict on quality

You really have a nerve. Last week you handed out the brickbats to the new ITV companies, Carlton and GMTV, and you got a very good press. But don't get too carried away. Newspapers like nothing more than having a good go at television. It makes a change from being thumped by their own watchdogs.

But you weren't being quite straight when you launched the 'performance reviews', were you? You didn't let on that you were handed an opportunity to keep the 'quality' companies who were ousted by Carlton and GMTV - and you funked it.

After some effective lobbying from the Campaign for Quality Television, David Mellor - before he became famous - amended the Broadcasting Bill so that you would be able to invoke 'exceptional circumstances' to counter the less desirable consequences of the franchise auction. I know for a fact that you thought about saving Thames Television from the broadcasting knackers' yard. But did you? You did not.

Did you use the 'exceptional circumstances' provision at all in the interests of quality television? You did not. And now you have the gall to complain about what you yourself wrought.

I was editing Thames Reports - a weekly current affairs programme which you rather liked - when your nasty little fax came through in October 1991, saying we had lost the franchise. Thames shut the programme down at the double, and we were all out the door by Christmas.

I've since worked for Carlton, and that's something I want to tell you about. I don't know about the drama and entertainment side, but for six months I edited Beam and DaSilva, which occupied the same slot as Thames Reports. Indeed, most of the key staff were from, er, Thames. As the woman who gave you your job said, it's a funny old world, isn't it?

Beam and DaSilva did better in the ratings against EastEnders than anything either Thames or Carlton has put up, by turning out some terrific stories. And what did you say about it in your review? 'There were some strong editions . . .', but the series made 'too frequent use of secret recording techniques'. I think we both know what you're getting at - you're miffed that you can't vet when these techniques are deployed, as you used to in the good old days. Whatever happened to the 'lighter regulatory touch' that you and Baroness Thatcher were so keen on?

The result of all this is already plain. Journalists who want to get on with strong programme making, for whichever Mr Moneybags is running the show, are going to be the fall guys - along with their audiences. Having presided over that ridiculous auction that pitched ITV into the marketplace, you're now turning up your nose at attempts to win ratings by combining solid journalism with popular appeal. What will a company like Carlton do?

It will make duller programmes for slots that don't matter too much and you'll probably commend it for improvements in a year's time. In other words, you'll continue to have it every way - the refuge of the bureaucrat down the ages.

Peter Gill

PS: I am still in work, editing Europe Express for Channel 4. I see that you say current affairs over here is 'impressive'. Wait till I tell Mum.