I always think the term majors is somewhat subjective.
I remember a conversation years ago on break-off. The topic was; "What is more prestigious, the China Open or the Welsh Open?" Now at that time, they had an identical format. I can't remember what the prize money was exactly for each, but I don't think the were much difference in terms of prize money or ranking points for the two.
There was a split in the forum, and people felt quite strongly on both.
My answer was that they were similar in terms of prestige, but if I had to pick one I'd go for the Welsh as an older tournament it had more history. Others said it was China, with one person (I forget who) saying the fact it was held in China made a difference. China being a bigger country and was seen as a hotbed of snooker at the time. (Which wouldn't have come into it for me when discussing prestige.) The Welsh Open was in Newport at the time.
Over time on Snooker Island, I've seen the opinions that longer matches = prestige. Which is why the UK Championship is considered less of a major than it used to be. Also, I've seen people claim that Prize Money indicates determines whether a tournament is a major. The more prize money, the bigger a major it. Again, I disagree that prize money itself directly makes something a major. But I do think there's an indirect correlation. (The more people who believe a tournament is prestigious, the more people will watch it. The more viewers the tournament gets, the more sponsorship it's likely to receive and the more prize money can be offered.)
So, we have an issue where some people think that a tournament with a long history makes it prestigious, some people think the longer matches make it prestigious, some people who think prize money or how much it affects a players rank makes it prestigious.
In short, there's no right or wrong answer. The BBC claim The World Championship, the UK Championship and The Masters are the most prestigious. Now, a lot of fans at home will agree with this. Some because the BBC tell them it is, some because they are probably the three tournaments that get the highest viewing figures, at least in the UK. And though this doesn't bother me in itself, because as I said what constitutes a major is so subjective, the other side of that argument is that because it's so subjective it can make it all the more annoying when the BBC pretend other tournaments don't exist. It's not so much the fact that they spunk themselves so much that they're tournaments are important. But, like Pinkball said, when Ding won the UK, the BBC made it sound like he hasn't won anything in eight years. We know that's not what they were actually saying, but a more casual viewer might be conned into thinking that Ding has done nothing for a longer period of his career than is actually true.