ITV News

I'm not quite sure what point you're making by highlighting the word 'never' in my post. My point is that yes, News at Ten won't beat the BBC in its current form, but that doesn't mean it never could in the future. Circumstances change and I think given the right Editor and editorial agenda, it could be as great and popular as it once was. Let's not forget that ITN also produces Channel 4 News, which is very highly regarded.

It should come hand in hand with it.

I thought this would be an interesting comparison to demonstrate how times change - today's protest headline script with a similar weekend bulletin 21 years ago on the day of the (much worse) poll tax riots (available on NewsFilm Online):

2011 (Steve Scott)

"Violence erupts as masked thugs hijack today's anti-cuts march in London - a few hundred troublemakers broke away from the main rally, attacking shops and confronting riot police. March organisers have condemned the group's actions."

1990 (Fiona Armstrong)

"Pitched battles in London as poll tax protest ends in rioting.

Sixty police and dozens of civilians in hospital.

Cars overturned; West End shops are looted.

Tonight, more arrests as police struggle for control."

For me, that epitomises the decline in ITV News over the past two decades. Look at how emotionally charged the words used in 2011 are - " masked thugs", "troublemakers", "hijack" etc. The 1990 headlines are much more objective and less sensationalist/alarmist. Although they are much shorter than the 2011 headlines, they give much more information to the viewer. I know it's only a small piece of evidence but it does help to show the direction of change in recent times.

Some interesting points being raised in the past few days. I sincerely agree with your posts on this and the previous page, itsrobert. I still tune into News at Ten but have neither the interest nor patience to sit through a whole edition these days... it really was perfect as it was. I thought one of the golden rules in television was not to tamper with a growing format?

One can only hope that the Evening Standard's line about Archie Norman turns out to be true. There really is no future for ITV News if it persists with this current editorial set-up. Viewings were tuning back in - slowly but surely - in the first half of 2009, which is when News at Ten was really coming into it's own and when the overt human interest was being calmed down. Viewers were tuning back in so why decide to turn them all off? And it just feels so wrong, after the huge build-up that this iconic news brand was having, to ruin that less than two years later - it's even worse that they've all but got rid of the name of the bulletin itself.

Have forum members ever reacted like this before to a "rebranding"? It's been almost 18 months into this look and people are still not content (I think mainly down to NAT being abruptly halted). I don't recall many of us acting like this in 2004 or even 2006. I know we're all presentation fans and are of course biased towards good-looking graphics and studios, etc., but viewing figures for NAT have declined - which is very telling.

Thanks for those above transcriptions. I can imagine the 1990 headlines being read out as a NAT opening from, say about two years ago, complete with headline bed, powerful images and serious intonation from the presenter. In that sense the news becomes more "hard-hitting" and would certainly make me look up and take notice. When they resort to ridiculous overuse of adjectives and adverbs, as they do all the time now, the news becomes a complete joke.



Absolutely.

Right now ITV's not doing either content or branding well, so focussing on getting the content right and then changing branding and onair presentation makes the most sense. If they try to do too many things they won't do anything well.

I can't ever remember such hostility towards a news rebrand persisting for so long. Usually people either love it at first and gradually tire of it (as happened with the 2006 rebrand) or they hate it but gradually get used to it. That the 2009 rebrand is still almost universally hated in 2011 is rather telling. I was optimistic at first but the more I've seen of it the less I like it. The whole look and feel of ITV News now is cheap, cheap, cheap. Even the journalism has cheapened, as demonstrated by that 1990/2011 comparison. It's less high brow than it was. Let's face it, ITV News has always been more 'down to earth' than the traditionally stuffy BBC but it didn't resort to cheap tactics and sensationalism back in its heyday of the 1980s and early 90s, as it does now.

Personally, I think ITV News made two big mistakes in the 2000s. The first was axing the 2004 rebrand after less than two years in early 2006. That was a solid, coherent and serious brand and they definitely weakened it in 2006. It coincided with a decline in editorial quality and was the first major change under Deborah Turness' leadership (I seem to recall David Mannion was still in charge for the February 2004 rebrand). The second big mistake was hyping up the return of News at Ten, putting so much effort into it and then axing it after less than two years. See a pattern here? They don't seem to be able to leave well enough alone and end up weakening strong brands. Knowing our luck, they'll probably keep the current look unchanged for years to come!

I see Mary Nightingale is replacing Mark Nicholas on Britain's Best Dish (I guess that explains her recent absence) - and I think that's the first time in quite a while an ITV News presenter has fronted an entertainment show for the network.

I remember when Mary presented Wish You Were Here and she was good at that too, interesting how she was replaced by Ruth England who looks very much like her.

It has been good to see Andrea Benfield, however Mary has done News At Ten when has has not fronted News AT 6.30 so she has probably fitted in both shows together although it has not been every night.

I must say I like the 2009 rebrand, I like the colours the opening sequences with the pictures (I wish they would show new pictures), I like the voice overs and I like the way the news is. I did like the New News At Ten from January 2008 but I think this looks is much better than the 2004 and 2006 looks. I will say the mini change in February 2009 was good because I am a fan a scenic views behind the presenters but all in all they have it right with this look.

that was more to do with the ITV corporate brand completely changing. dont think you can really call it a 'mistake'

Of the theatre of news era though the branding was definitely weaker after 2006, especially when they couldn't make their mind up between blue and teal. In hindsight though addressing that to an extent with a look more unified with News at Ten with the superb London backdrop also turned out to be a mistake considering how short term it was - I do think the 2009 revamp would have been much better received if we hadn't had the temporary fix in the middle.

I fully agree with this, and 'cheap, cheap, cheap' is only emphasised by the regional news. The opening titles are absolutely dreadful and is like a bad mock. It is possible to do regional news on the cheap yet still have it looking respectable and authoritative, for example this clip of Granada Reports from 2001. 10 years on and something like that would fit in fine, and arguably looks more 'current' than the present look.

I know news coverage, especially regional news, is a loss making exercise, however ITV is first and foremost a PSB. Current affairs should be seen as an investment rather than something to make immediate turnover. The investment is the public perception, and ITV News' current public perception may be at an all time low. If you remove the news bulletins and any other current affairs from ITV1, you're left with a cross between Sky1 and Living TV.