Bradby at Ten

Give. Me. Strength.

Rob! Max! *waves*

Bradby patronising and ruining News at Ten: yes. Huge error by ITN.

The persecution of the Rohingya has been going on for years. ITV News has only one correspondent in Asia - less resources than the BBC - and it's probably the case that ITV News believes that the Burma issue is less likely to attract attention in the UK than China's one-child policy. Unlike the BBC (the World Service), ITV News doesn't have a global reach except for reports that are broadcast on CNN and the PBS Newshour.

By what standard is this a "bold attempt to reinvent the brand"? If the brand to which you refer is New at Ten, then, arguably, it was reinvented in January 2008 when it returned to the schedules. It did so by returning to a two-anchor format, poaching talent from Sky News and appealing to the public by utilising Trevor McDonald. That is reinventing the brand. As a great many of us have said on here, the reporting always was, is and in all likelihood will continue to be, exceptional. The packaging that wraps itself around the reports, the anchor, the links, the editorial decisions taken the anchor, the injection of 'personal' comment and observations... Well, that's a different story entirely.

It's possible that had ITV left Julie Etchingham, Mark Austin and Alastair Stewart in place and given the bulletin a) a decent lead-in, other than spurious documentaries by celebrities or Britain's Got Talent; b) minimal commercial interruption; and c) the opportunity to start at 10pm, there is a pretty good chance that viewing figures would begin to rise. It's ironic - and grossly hypocritical - that the Chief Executive of ITV, Adam Crozier, has this week criticised the BBC for relying on staple shows - such as Bargain Hunt or Homes under the Hammer - during the day and that it doesn't "compete" or do anything different. This from a network which airs Jeremy Kyle, This Morning and Loose Women in the same slots and cannot beat shows about antiques and home renovations. Why did he not criticise the BBC in primetime? Because he couldn't. The BBC would only have to point to a) Britain's Got Talent and b) I'm a Celebrity to rebut the point. The quality of the lead-in is poor.

Tell me - how is Bradby an "intellectual"? He went to university and joined ITN (as it then was) upon graduation. I can see nothing in his resumé to suggest that he has an intellectual capacity greater than anybody else. If you judge his novel-writing to be a barometer of intellectual capacity then I'm afraid you are mistaken. Mr Bradby's path to the anchor desk is in no way to different to those of a) Sir Alistair Burnett; b) Sir Trevor McDonald; and c) Alastair Stewart. University to cub/junior/trainee reporter and a climb up the ranks. To imply, as you do, that Trevor McDonald was any less of a broadcaster or journalist than Bradby is, quite honestly, naive. His reports throughout the 80s and 90s were exceptional. I wonder how many members are old enough to remember first-hand his reports from Iraq during the first Persian Gulf War or his exclusives with world leaders, such as Mandela or Yeltsin that made headlines?

Whilst daytime differs massively in content, with ITV catering for people who want to be stimulated and involved in today and BBC1 for those who want a more anaesthetic, soporific and distant experience (an escape to somewhere-or-another, at 2012 prices), I don't think that's true of the lead in to the Ten.

BGT only leads in to 5 bulletins a year and IACGMOOH 12 of the approx 260 NaTs broadcast annually. I think the quality of the lead-in is fairly comparable once you spread that month of 'event' television across the year. Doc Martin, Lewis, Unforgotten, Joanna Lumley documentary, no poorer in quality than what's on BBC1 up to 10pm is it?

Agree with the rest of your post wholeheartedly.

Hang on. Can you run that by me again? The bit about the coup, Iran, the Shah, etc. If that's the way that News at Ten has presented the complexity of Iran (or Persia as it would have been at the time) then it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. This may be a case of cutting a long story short on your part, but if that is what you've taken away from the broadcast and accepted as fact, then I'm sorry, ITV News is up the proverbial. This is why news reports do an injustice towards history when it attempts to condense hundreds of years into a 90-second package.

Very brief history lesson coming up... The West did not engineer a "coup to replace Iran's democratically elected government with the Shah". The Qajar dynasty that had ruled Persia since 1789 was overthrown in 1925 because it was corrupt, weak and led by an eleven-year old Shah. It was also under an increasing threat from the Bolsheviks. It was replaced by the Pahlavi dynasty which was from the same house as the Qajar dynasty. In time, it moved away from a system of absolute monarchy to one of constitutional monarchy. The Shah appointed Prime Ministers that were 'democratically-elected' by the Parliament (not the people). In 1953, there was a coup d'etat that removed the 'democratically-elected' Prime Minister, Mosaddegh, and strengthened the hand of the Shah. There are a variety of reasons for the removal of Mosaddegh (an assassination attempt on the Shah, personal animosity, disagreements over oil and the predecessor to BP, and the fact that Mosaddegh was a close blood relative of the Qajar dynasty). What happened after, of course, is that the Shah was toppled in 1979, the monarchy abolished, and the Ayatollahs took control.

That's a summary of the events and is hardly touches on the complexity of the issues at play. If the News at Ten presented the history of the country as you've presented it, then I'm afraid they've done you a disservice.

Tom again tonight... Was getting hopeful about Rageh being on tonight

It is still ITN. ITV plc still owns only 40% of it.

On that note, the broadcast of Doc Martin ends just before 10:00 but a commercial break means that the news starts at 10:04. Given that it is likely that many viewers will switch to BBC One or Sky News at that time rather than wait for ITV News at Ten, why would businesses pay for advertisements to be shown in that particular commercial break?

Because there are more viewers hanging around after the end of Doc Martin, one of ITV's highest rating dramas, than there would be if they aired that break half way through News at Ten.

What Tom probably meant is that Mossadegh was indirectly democratically elected because members of parliament are elected by the people. Most viewers probably understand that.

With regard to the attempt on the Shah's life, I haven't come across any mention of Mossadegh being involved in an act of violence. Is there any evidence that he was involved in this act?

But doesn't the likelihood of many viewers not bothering to wait for the extra few minutes to see ITV News at Ten mean that money spent by businesses on advertisements shown in the 10:00-10:04 break is wasted?

What Tom Bradby "probably meant" as opposed to what he said - and indeed, what others interpreted his comments to mean - are entirely different things. As @thejules has yet to respond, we won't know. It may appear that I'm being picky but we have been discussing the editorial tone of the broadcast and the high expectations that we all have of ITV's news division. If Tom Bradby's comments lacked sufficient clarity and failed to accurately present the facts then that is an issue that needs to be addressed. I want @thejules to clarify what was said. If that's his summary based upon how it was reported - there's a significant problem. If that's his summary and he's misunderstood , that's a problem - and it's especially ironic when he's gone to such lengths to praise the clarity and insight offered by the new News at Ten . It can't be all that clear if it isn't explaining things properly. As I also said, he could be cutting a long story short.

In respect of the assassination attempt, I did not say that Mosaddegh was either a) involved in an act of violence or b) involved in the assassination attempt. I said that the assassination attempt was one of a variety of reasons for his removal from power.