Monday, May 18, 2009

faux journalism

As I was pouring coffee this morning, I had CNN on (or Headline News) - and the so-called faux journalist who reads the news actually said "pre-justiced" instead of prejudiced

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!


  1. Susan,
    I 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. ;)

  2. sorry Tracy! I respelled it - correctly this time!

    pre-justiced vs prejudiced!

  3. 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. :)