Bradby at Ten

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.

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.

I can't remember exactly what Tom said about Iran save that there was a democratically elected leader who wanted to nationalise BP and the West may have been involved in engineering the coup which saw him replaced by the shah . The detail is irrelevant the point is News at Ten is engaging in serious News stories and providing concise historical analytical contexte to its viewers. You should be welcoming that!!

A tit-bit from this morning's Express:

''The former political editor of ITN has reduced this half-hour bulletin to the equivalent of a chat down the pub with your mate...together with a casual style we now have Bradby's opinion. Sorry, but who cares ? ITV you have completely ruined your news.''

The point is valid but very much the case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Don't Ofcom regulations state that broadcast news has to be impartial? If so how does an employee of ITN giving his opinions on news stories fit into that. Surely this is a contravention of broadcasting regulation. I would hate for this be the first step towards American style news programming.

I've taken the liberty of highlighting key faults in your argument. Firstly, Mosaddegh was not the leader. He was the Prime Minster. The leader was the Shah. Mosaddegh didn't want to nationalise BP - it was the predecessor to BP, the AIOC, that he wanted to nationalise. If it was referred to as BP in the broadcast it was factually incorrect. Mosaddegh was not replaced by the Shah. He was removed from office and replaced by Fazlollah Zahedi.

It is, however, obtuse of you to say that "the detail is irrelevant". The detail is everything. Those of us here that work in these environments will testify to this. As you correctly say, the "historical analytical contexte" [sic] should be concise. Yet above all else it should be correct. It should be factually and historically accurate. For the record, the News at Ten has always engaged serious news. It is not a new development that was ushered in with Tom Bradby's arrival at the anchor desk. For someone who admires News at Ten so much and has discussed at length the strength of the ITN brand, you've demonstrated a rather surprising ignorance of the broadcast's history and pedigree.

Any attempt to engage in "serious news stories" (your words, not mine) is undermined if the facts are not accurately presented. As I've said, it may be that you misunderstood what was said but, if that's that case, it calls into aquestion the clarity of the report and how the broadcast was edited and scripted.

Oh, the horror! Tom Bradby has taken over as the new anchor at ITV - and the Jan Scores are in ... Tom sits alone behind a huge slab of black mirror, which masquerades as a desk. I imagine he leans over and smirks happily at his reflection during the ad breaks. Blows himself the occasional kiss ... He has turned the once-respected programme into News at Tom ... Tom is determined to stamp his smarmy personality over everything and everyone. In the process, he down-grades the actual news, which becomes a backdrop to his own lovely self ... I pity the talented ITV journalists, the Bradby Bunch, who must file their reports into this black hole of Tom-smuggery.