prostate condition last week. the prime minister had been informed of the diagnosis and the news that - we're bringing you this evening in advance. i many of you wrote in to complain that too much airtime had been given to too little information, and that it was an invasion of the king's privacy. sylvia franklin emailed. stuart reynolds told newswatch. the bbc has been reporting that since taking the throne, king charles has determined that the modern royal family must be more open about medical matters while still preserving some privacy. his recent visit to hospital for an operation on an enlarged prostate was disclosed to the media, and journalists were also briefed about the princess of wales' hospital admission for abdominal surgery around the same time. this new openness is a world away from the information the media was given when king charles's grandfather, george the sixth, developed lung cancer in the late 19405 around the time charles was born. the word cancer wasn't used at all. at this very hour of happiness, the king was beginning to suffer pain. his left leg was threatened with the failure of blood supply. but the king would allow no hint of this to mar the proceedings. the king rested, but not for long. he returned to his duties. by now, the people were aware that the king was seriously ill. "the nearer one stood to him, the more it was apparent," said the prime minister. he was sustained not only by his natural buoyancy, but by the sincerity of his christian faith. well, i'm pleased to say that one of the many viewers who wrote in to complain about the coverage of king charles's cancer diagnosis is able to join us on the line now. she's angela emmus from hampshire. angela, thank you so much for coming on newswatch. can you tell me what were your concerns about the coverage of the king's diagnosis on monday's news at six? well, i felt that the whole programme devoted to this news item was really out of all proportion. and i think the palace statement should have been sufficient to convey his condition. and they did emphasise that this cancer had been caught early and really it should have been left at that. maybe just the odd reference to his forebear, but it really was too much. from the bbc�*s point of view, there's a lot of interest in the story and viewers joining the programme at different points. so i guess they would argue, isn't it appropriate to repeat the main facts, however few there were for the viewers joining at different points in the programme? yes. but then there's all the speculation about what was the cancer found. and we all knew about his prostate. he was very open about that, which i think was very good. and i don't think that not having revealed what his cancer was, was actually very helpful by the palace. it's interesting you've raised a really significant question about the tone of the bbc�*s coverage. in that sense, you seem to be implying it sounds quite old—fashioned — the idea of cancer is nothing but the worst case scenario. i felt the whole emphasis on it was so doom—laden over cancer. modern cancer treatments are coming along all the time. i mean, i myself had breast cancer in �*02 and i went through a lumpectomy radiotherapy, the hormone therapy, and basically it was done and dusted. and my husband, same thing, he was picked up with prostate cancer radiotherapy. he's on hormone treatment and again, done and dusted. there's too much of the doom side of cancer. i think there needs to be more uplifting and positive attitude towards any diagnosis. since monday, though, angela, do you think the bbc has been better at respecting the palace�*s request for privacy? i think the king's privacy has already been invaded, if you like, by his own admission that he has an enlarged prostate and had surgery for that, which we know what that involves because a number of friends have had it, etc.. angela, what was your concern about pretty much the whole of that bulletin? — monday's news at six — being devoted to that one story, the king charles's cancer diagnosis? well, it meant that there was absolutely no reporting on the really fearful things that are going on in the world, like poor old ukraine is more or less being forgotten. gaza — horrendous. the fires in chile were dreadful. i mean, that's all sort of climate change. but the others, you know, are manmade wars, which are really very, very serious and do need talking about. angela emmus, thank you so much. we did ask bbc news to provide a senior editor to be interviewed on this week's programme, but no one was available. instead, we received this statement. "the news of king charles's cancer announcement is a significant moment for people in the uk and across the world. "the bbc has a duty to ensure people are informed and up to date with this news and its possible implications. "we know from our own audience research that people come to the bbc for news on the royal family and expect us to provide timely and trusted information. "with this in mind, we have to ensure that the most significant stories are given the attention they deserve, reaching as wide an audience as possible while providing important context. "the news has further opened up conversations about cancer, the importance of early checks, and the impact it has on those suffering and those close to them. "we always aim to cover stories like this with the utmost sensitivity". just time for a couple more of your reactions to coverage of other recent stories, starting with the decision a couple of weeks ago to begin a 1:00 news bulletin like this. today at one — the end of an era at liverpool football club as managerjurgen klopp announces his departure. it's the right moment for me and i think it's the right moment as well for the club. a number of viewers objected about that choice of a lead story, including pauline deacon. the programme's main story was klopp�*s intended resignation as liverpool football manager and the programme spent a fair amount of time discussing that. this was followed by the news about the international court ofjustice ruling on israel. and then the third story was about — the related was about the related to the death of alfie steel. so i'm just wondering, on the rationale for this running order. we put pauline�*s query to bbc news and they told us: "this was a breaking news story in the morning with the bbc news at 0ne providing the latest reporting and analysis. "running orders change as the days stories evolve". last friday, the two teenagers who killed brianna ghey were sentenced to life imprisonment, and sarah thompson got in touch, complaining that the bbc should not repeatedly be showing images of them on television. "it is no longer in the public interest to show the mug shots of those responsible for brianna's murder," sara said. "please, will the bbc not subscribe to the media circus surrounding yet another serious brutality"? two days later, brianna's mother, esther ghey, appeared on sunday with laura kuenssberg and addressed these words to the mother of one of the killers, scarlettjenkinson. if she did want to contact me and she does want to speak, then i'm open to that. i'd like to understand more how their life was and what they went through. and i also want her to know that i don't blame her for what her child's done. there was a big response to that very moving interview, including this recommendation from judith hartley. "if you don't watch anything else today, watch brianna ghey�*s mother interviewed by laura kuenssberg on bbc iplayer, brought me to tears". finally, those trying to find last week's newswatch on bbc iplayer on saturday morning were instead shown this. how did this administration allowed these groups to get so strong in the first place? well, by all accounts... breaking news coverage of strikes by us forces on targets in syria and iraq. that's what was broadcast in our normal news channel slot late on friday night instead of the programme we'd recorded, which was about emails released by the bbc concerning panorama's interview with princess diana in 1995. the correct programme did go out as planned on saturday morning on bbc one, and we did get it onto the iplayer by saturday lunchtime. but in the meantime, nev young emailed in: "it is suspicious that newswatch, the one about redacted documents from the bbc, was itself completely removed from all bbc feeds to be replaced by a breaking news item. "even iplayer shows the breaking report. "smells to me like the bbc news department will go to any lengths to hide the truth from the people who pay for them. "i admit, i have my tongue in my cheek". no conspiracy nerve. sometimes our news channel transmission is replaced when there's a big breaking news story. apologies for the inconvenience and a reminder that news watch can always be seen in due course on iplayer if you miss it on air. thank you for all your comments this week. if you want to share your opinions about what you see or hear on bbc news, on tv, radio, online and social media. email us newswatch at bbc.co.uk or you can find us on x, formerly known as twitter, at newswatch bbc. you can call us on 0370106676 and do have a look at previous interviews on our website, bbc.co.uk slash newswatch. that's all from us for now. thank you forjoining us. and do think about getting in touch and perhaps even coming on the programme. we'll be back to hear more of your thoughts about how the bbc covers the news next week. goodbye. this is bbc news we will have the headlines for you at the top of the hour, which is straight after this programme. if you ever wondered where your old laptops, phones and tvs go to die, well, every year our planet generates over 50 million tonnes of electronic waste. the problem is things just don't last as long these days. take phones, for example. the entire industry seems geared around us replacing our handset every couple of years or so. but only about a quarter of that e—waste is properly recycled. and that's really bad because our devices contain potentially toxic chemicals. well, michael kaloki has been looking at how one company is trying to combat this in kenya. this is dandora. this community on the outskirts of nairobi is home to one of the largest dump sites, not only in kenya but east africa. although it was declared full 20 years ago, over 800 tonnes of garbage is still dumped on this sprawling 30—acre site every day. and in recent years, an increasing proportion of this is e—waste. men, women and even children scour the stacks of waste for discarded electronics, breaking them apart for their motherboards, batteries, wiring, anything that can be resold for parts. it's become an important income stream in what is a desperately deprived area. i've come to this part of the dump site to meet an e—waste collector. there are thousands of people who work in the dump site and it's a dangerous environment to work in. stanley mwangi is one of them. translation: we get a lot of e-waste here, as you can see. _ we find items like motherboards. we repair some of the motherboards and others we just use as replacement parts. anything we can't use, we sell to chinese traders. there are many buyers for us materials, but the e—waste is not easily found. the items are few and the buyers are many, so the price shoots up. we sell the e—waste by the kilo. traders pay 1,500 shillings, which is about $6 per kilo. he's worked on the dump since 2002 and, as a single parent, says he has no other choice. it is dangerous work, but we have to do it. if we do not, we will go hungry. people don't have access to any protective gear, there are arguably greater dangers to working here. they are exposed to toxic chemicals such as lead, mercury and cadmium. these chemicals can leach into local water supplies and noxious fumes inhaled when any unwanted e—waste is burned. but while kenya only recycles 1% of its e—waste, this is farfrom being just a kenyan or an african problem. for example, north america only recycles about 15% of its e—waste. while the informal and partial recycling of electronic waste has been the status quo in kenya for decades, one organisation is hoping to change that. so some of the waste from landfills like the one in dandora ends up in e—waste centres such as this one. well, i'm here to find out what the process is when the waste gets here. the waste electrical and electronics equipment centre collects and recycles a variety of e—waste, ranging from computers and phones to solar panels and refrigerators. at its nairobi headquarters, these are then channelled to the relevant workshop. in one, technicians test and refurbish laptops and tablets so they can be used again.