Bring back ITN

I'm sorry, but this is utterly untrue. No matter how many times you say it, through however many layers of rose tint, it won't make it true.

ITN is a supplier contractor of news to ITV, exactly the same as it is to Channel 4 and Channel 5. It's name has not existed on air as a brand on ITV since 2001. ITN has not been wholly owned by the ITV network since the early 90s. Whilst they may have used the ITN name up until 1999 (and less so until 2001), ITN equaling by default ITV News has arguably not been the case since the start of Channel 4 in 1982*.

I know you don't like to give answers to questions, but what the hell. You say the ITN brand carries a lot of weight. Where is the evidence of that? If it is true, why don't ITN use it themselves? Where is the proof that renaming "ITV News at Ten" to "ITN News at Ten" will do anything to improve it's reputation and audience share? It'll still have the same piss poor anchor blundering and sighing his way through the script and whatever other reasons people have for not watching it.

*I don't know if Channel 4 could choose their news contractor up until 1993 or whether ITN was the default because it was also supplying ITV.

Next he'll be saying that - because things were better in the old days - Alastair Stewart could get more shifts by changing his name by deed-poll to Alastair Burnet!

Ultimately what counts is the quality on the screen not the brand but my argument is that in News ITN is a more prestigious brand than ITV News. ITV might still want to exploit that.

From an era when viewers had the choice of the BBC or the ITN branded news. It was a different landscape that ITN was king of.

In retrospect, ITV did the right thing in using their own brand for the news bulletins, but in the early noughties was poorly executed.

BASED ON WHAT PROOF?
How many times do you need to be asked this? If "ITN" is such a 'prestigious' brand, why do ITN themselves not use it for their news platforms???

It was put out to tender but according to the book "Channel 4: The Early Years and the Jeremy Isaacs Legacy"
By Dorothy Hobson, the contract was given to ITN under pressure from the IBA and Parliament - because Channel 4 News was to be taken in a different direction to ITV, lots of people though taking ITN was the worst possible idea, including the board of Channel 4.

How would taking ITN as the news contractor for Channel 4 prevent Channel 4 News from being taken in a different direction?

Channel 4 News is brilliant. It's a pity that Welsh viewers were unable to see it (except for those who received overspill on the English border) until the advent of digital TV.

Channel 4 News at Noon aired on S4C.

On the original topic - it'll never happen and there's no good reason why it should, really.

We coped.

It's a single letter difference. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people watching assume it was always called ITV News.

Well up until 1995 apart from the news summaries most programmes had their own name with no reference to ITN or ITV in the title of the programme, although of course the logo and sign off was there and they were very much "ITN".

In 1995 the generic look came in and on screen at least the programme titles were prefixed by the ITN brand - don't know if they ever were in the listings though. Could have been as "ITN News" rather than "Lunchtime News".

I think the point that was being made is that if you expand both sets of initials, you get Independent Television News.

In do think that rebranding the ITN News Channel to ITV was a mistake that devalued the channel. With the ITN branding they could use Channel 4 and Channel 5 packages. With ITV branding these weren't usable.