It made me wonder again, why we must be overwhelmed with sorority cosmetic from a so-called news source. Or if news has just become another form of entertainment, then why bother calling these "readers" journalists? It has become such a white-washed conformity.
If we aren't using journalists to read the copy - and the corporations like CNN are NOT - then why not hire actors who have some craft in language and delivery? How much more entertaining would it be????
I would be compelled to watch and listen just because there would be personality and gravitas in the delivery and voice!
As it stands now, it is all the same - mundane, average, mediocre and frankly, purely beige.
Just a thought. Imagine giving some actors with craft some work!
Susan,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. Perhaps I would actually listen to these journalists if there were personality. I can't stand listening to monotone-cloned voices and, as such, usually end up changing the channel. But, I'm a little confused by the difference between "pre-justiced" and prejusticed. Perhaps its something that I have to hear in order to understand the difference.
P.S. I miss your musing such as this from class. They always fascinated me and made me think. ;)
sorry Tracy! I respelled it - correctly this time!
ReplyDeletepre-justiced vs prejudiced!
I actually have a friend who is a professional actor currently working as an anchorman. So some channels do hire actors to read the copy. :)
ReplyDelete