Talk:News presenter

Comment

I'm not sure why this is in an encyclopedia but I at least changed it to define the characters and corporations as those of the United States of America because other countries in the WORLD (this is the WWW, is it not?) have televisions too and by golly, real live news casts....DW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.30.53 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 9 January 2003 (UTC)

I don't think this is the least bit accurate. It lumps anyone who talks about newsworthy items in a broadcast medium. However, there is a vast difference between a newsreader (they do no research) and a reporter. William J Bean (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the rest of us just gather round the wireless and smoke pipes. -- Tarquin 21:27 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

So, news anchors around the world are not the butt of jokes on comedy shows? There's nothing U.S.-specific about this article (not counting the frequent use of the word "American" which you guys just added), other than the list of American news anchors. Add some from other countries. Geez, you foreigners... ;-P -Jazz77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.90.232 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 9 January 2003 (UTC)

I'd rather this page was an encyclopedia article and not a list. So only notable news anchors: who was the first to read the news with no trousers on, for instance. -- Tarquin 22:36 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

Is Jeremy Paxman notable? —Ashley Y 11:03, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

Lavender Cheung

Is Lavender Cheung actually notable? He recieves no Google hits outside Wikipedia and mirrors, so it's tough for me to judge. - Seth Ilys 20:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merger

No way should this article be merged with Newsreader. They are complementary but different posts. It would make a joke of the article and produce a factually inaccurate mess.

There are 'three types of news presenter -

• a newsreader, who simply reads the news, is not a journalist but is an actor. Newsreaders aren't members of the National Union of Journalists but simply Actors Equity, the actors' union;
• a newscaster, who is a working and accredited journalist, and is an active participant in the process of putting together a bulletin, as well as interviewing people for stories;
• a News Anchor, who is a different style of newscaster. Whereas a newscaster is in effect a journalist-presenter, a News Anchor is a newscaster who has a personalised identification with a bulletin. This phenomenon is particularly associated with the US and Canada, which is where the term came from. For example, NBC Nightly News was so strongly associated with Tom Brokaw that even when he was not there, the bulletin would be announced as being his, with the 'stand-in' NA then saying something like "Tom is away on assignment tonight", etc. Ditto with Peter Jennings on ABC News and Dan Rather with CBS Evening News. Some US stations, particularly rolling news stations, use 'news anchors' but place less emphasis on the presenter, but still place more emphasis than is the norm with newscasters.

For example, Anne Doyle is the principal newscaster on RTÉ Nine O'Clock News but no-one says it is her bulletin, in the way NBC Nightly News was Brokaw's. Similarly Peter Sissons was the principal newscaster on the BBC Ten O'Clock News yet no-one would ever call it his bulletin, and his name was never used unless he was actually delivering.

Put simply -

• a newsreader is a professional newsreader and nothing more. He or she arrives in, reads someone else's script and goes home;
• a newscaster is a working professional journalist who writes the script he or she delivers, does journalistic interviews, and is a hands-on presence in news gathering.
• A news anchor is a personality newscaster who personifies the bulletin, is identified exclusively with it, with his or her personality shaping the credibility of the newscast.

So it would be an elementary mistake to mix up the three roles, something this article does. It needs severe editing from people who understand the media, not merging into an article that is about something different. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 19:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The theory is that these are all highly interrelated and there is some duplication about the whole thing. The information is easy enough to keep separate, just merge them together into one decent article. It just seems a little odd to have to jump around to three different articles which are essentially about slightly different aspects of the same thing. violet/riga (t) 19:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

unworkable. If you put everything in at newsreader then you have to call Jon Snow a newsreader. Professional journalists go ballistic if being called a mere newsreader when they are working journalists and newscasters and not simply readers of the news. If you put it as newscaster then you have to call Kenneth Kendal and Charles Mitchel newscasters but they weren't - they were professional readers of the news and calling them newscasters infuriates real newscasters and journalists. And if you put it in at news anchor you misrepresent the roles of hundreds of newscasters and newsreaders on the planet, because they aren't news anchors.

The standard wikipedia writing approach is not to dump everything in under the one title when large chunks of the article would then be under the wrong name. The professional standard is to use the separate terms for what they are, different roles doing different things, and so be able to link Kendal, Michel, Brokaw, Snow etc to the right category for them. It avoids confusion, inaccuracy and has absolute clarity. The bottom line in encyclopaedias is clarity and accuracy, not 'dump everything together and who cares if it is actually wrong' convenience. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 20:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What would be wrong with news presenter then? That would give a good generic title and these articles would become sections. Newscaster redirects to news anchor already, and newsreader is just a poorly-constructed stub, so it would hardly be a major change. violet/riga (t) 20:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. There is no such term, so people aren't likely to google it. We shouldn't make up non-existent term;
2. News presenter could equally apply to other presenters of news programmes, not just news anchors, newsreaders and newscasters. For example, one could call the presenters of news magazine programmes as news presenters, so not only does the term not exist, using it would be non-specific and could involve any presenter of any news-orientated broadcast or programme. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 20:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term is used:

1. "Television News Presenter" course listed on the British Film Industry site [1]
2. Used by the BBC Radio 4 site, and it also notes the Sony Award for News presenter [2] and other BBC and ITV pages [3] [4]
3. Used as a broader term for use in the headline, instead of "news anchor" which is used in the article [5] [6]
4. As a cartoon (oddly) [7]
5. By management and representatives [8] [9]
6. By the Press Complaints Commission [10]

Seeing as they all present the news I don't think it would misrepresent them. Your complaint of it including other presenters would easily be touched upon in the lead of the article. violet/riga (t) 21:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further, "news anchor" is obviously a more American/Canadian term and "newsreader" is a term used elsewhere. This article currently includes information about the latter which surely cannot remain here if we are to have a separate newsreader article. Your definition of the terms, while correct, does not reflect the current status of the articles. violet/riga (t) 21:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

News presenter is tolerable, but just about. It is generic title, not the name of anything. I fail to see why it is necessary to move accurately titled names that deal with the different terms and roles used in the broadcasting industry to an article under a made-up generic name that is only used because newscasters threatened to boycott any grouping that called them newsreader when they are not that, and would call newsreaders newscasters. News presenter is a temporary name used in the industry (and hated by all. The NUJ, of which I am a member, wants it banned) but which professionals in the industry avoid like the plague where possible. IMHO we should keep the articles separate and create a template linking them and all the other named jobs in broadcasting, to keep clarity and allow for more information to be added.

One thing I often do when these sort of issues arise is talk to professionals I deal with (I am both an academic and a journalist, so I contacts in both areas) and bounce issues that are being debated on wikipedia. I spoke on this issue to radio and television broadcasters I know in three stations (I in the UK. 2 in Ireland) and also to academics who teach journalism. A lot of media heads were at a conference this morning. As I was there I took the opportunity to sound people out. I spoke to 21 people. One said "news presenter is OK. But god I hate that term." 20 thought it logical to treat the separate roles in news communication separate.

The other problem with news presenter is that, as it is not a real term but a generic one, there are no limits to what it could refer to. For example many broadcasting organisations have news and current affairs as one group which they internally divide. But there is a real demarcation. If Wikipedia creates news presenter as a catch-all term, there is a real likelihood in the future of edit wars people different people argue that different individuals in the news & current affairs would or would not fit within that category. For example, until he retired last year Professor Brian Farrell was a current affairs presenter with RTÉ's Prime Time show. As it deals with news issues, and he was the presenter of it, would he be a news presenter? He would go ballistic if you linked him in with newsreaders, as he is a working journalist and they are actors. Put him in the list and most people would delete it on sight. Others would add it in again. Ditto with his replacement Miriam O'Callaghan, the BBC's Richard Dimbleby, Sir Robin Day and David Dimbleby, and ITV's Jonathan Dimbleby. And what about The Late Late Show presenters Gay Byrne, Frank Hall and Pat Kenny, all of whom presented (or in Pat's place still present) a show that covers everything from authors chatting about books to heavyweight news stuff. Pat could be called a news presenter but it would be a gross distortion of what he does. Also is John Humphries a news presenter as he presents a news programme, but is not a newscaster, though he was at one stage a newscaster in the 1980s?

The problem with news presenter is that it is a generic term could mean anything or nothing. Because of its ambiguity it could produce an unencyclopadic article that because of its title could have people adding in stuff that in the journalistic would be regarded as garbage, but which a non-journalist, going by the ambiguous nature of the name, could think correct. Newscaster, newsreader and news anchor are clearly defined terms, that would allow people to slot a person in precisely into the job they do. Having news presenter would cause all sorts of confusion. Even if it could be narrowed down to news bulletin presenters (which it can't) it would not allow individuals to be categorised in their own article. Calling John Snow, Peter Sissons, Charles Mitchell and Maurice O'Doherty news presenters would be misleading. The former two as working journalists and newscasters. The latter two were not journalists but actors as newsreaders.

In terms of accuracy, factual reliability, usability, etc using the accurate terms makes more sense than replacing them with an ambiguous generic term which has no clear definition and when used will make articles linking to it less, not more, accurate. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 22:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand your views, and thanks for the detailed explanation. Since the terms are clearly defined, yet confused by some (including the media themselves), I feel that would strengthen to need for a central discussion of exactly what you are talking about. I've not been able to come up with a better name than News presenter yet, but I think that would cover the areas well. Having three separate articles, I think, may confuse some people, duplicate information and simply lead to the reader having to jump between them. I see your worry about the term being too broad, but if it is constructed well enough to begin with I don't think people will change it too much. I've also just seen that Journalist contains some duplication of this too.

My idea for the news presenter article would be to have headings to distinguish each of the three titles, and an introduction which details the similarities, differences and correct terminologies. The lead would deal with the fact that "news presenter" is a broad term and that the more specific titles are preferred. violet/riga (t) 13:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like plain common sense. Having three articles for what are very similar roles would be confusing and needlessly nitpicking, much like having different articles for shopkeeper and merchant. Pete 06:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notable News anchors list

The list of so called "Notable News anchors" is becoming more of a LIST of news anchors. Some of the anchors listed have not done anything notable. Some of the anchors listed deserve to be on the list, but that section definently needs clean up. Also, would the list be considered POV? --Kfrogers 06:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Should Letizia Ortiz be listed here?85.55.176.123 17:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How about we just cut the section entirely? If not, what criteria should one need to fulfil to be considered "notable?" Dannysjgdf (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast images of newspapers

Hello. Can someone add a section on what seems (to me) to be a fairly recent trend: video broadcasts of actual newspapers, sometimes with (and even without) comment by a "presenter" who turns the pages while the camera pans around. A fairly lame way to present the news, but I'm sure the cost is minimal. The TV news equivalent of reading/describing the comics page over the radio, and a short step above doing the same with blogs or web pages. Ewlyahoocom 01:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Notable News anchors list

I agree; on top of that...all of the American anchors featured are at the network level. Give me a break! There are local folks that are a hell of a lot better than some listed. Clearly not a true representation.--Bdj95 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

On 2006-12-09, user 70.104.140.152 (talk · contribs) added a Very Long List to the "American newsreaders" ... Wikipedia's definition of "notable" for these kinds of lists is simply that they have an article in Wikipedia, so I'm going to remove all of the un-wikied names as original research.

If someone else wants to check each one to see if they have an article, then you can return them to the list ... I could have wikified all of the names and simply removed the ones that are redlinked, but if the original contributor was too lazy to do it in the first place, then just kiss 'em good-bye ... I'm also Too Busy to try to alphabetize this list per the MOS. —72.75.126.37 (talk · contribs) 08:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable News Anchors examplefarm

The list is the vast majority of the article and is unwieldy and not useful. I feel that it should either be moved to its own separate "List of" article or simply trimmed down dramatically. — wfaulk 20:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian newsreaders section

It's embarassing to see the overkill there. Basically every newsreader on Australian TV. No, they are ALL NOT notable! Sections for each city is ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.252.10 (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Satire

Just a thought, but considering the percentage of young Americans (and let's not joke; most Wikipedians are also American) that get their news mainly from the Comedy Central shows The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, shouldn't Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert be included in this list? 12.216.169.187 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Those shows are technically comedy, and do not fit into the category of news programs at all. South Park finds humor in current events, but is definitely not a news program.Landfritter (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved the list to its own article List of news presenters by nationality.

This article should focus on what news presenters are and what they do rather than on listing everyone who'se ever been a news anchor in his life.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Anchorman as cronkiter in Swedish

I've watched the news from Sweden on and off for the past 30 years, and have never heard the post of anchorman referred to as a cronkiter. A little web searching revealed no such thing except for English language articles concerning the death of Walter Cronkite.

Looking at the Swedish version of the news presenter page gives these terms: Programledar, programvärd, programpresentatör, and nyhetsankar.

Perhaps some validation of this would be in order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.122.238 (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the assertion, and cited Ben Zimmer's account of how this urban myth seems to have arisen. Dactylion (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Radio presenter

What is the name for a radio presenter, not neccesarily about news?. And the participans (professionally or often) in a radio program (space). Links to this conceopts would be added to the see also section. Regards. --Nopetro (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of "anchor".

It would be nice if the section on "etymology" gave even the slightest hint where the word comes from, not just who supposedly was the first to be called it (which, BTW, the article on Cronkite disagrees with, and says he wasn't the first to be called "anchor". It's my understanding that an etymology should include why they called the person "anchor", what it means. When I look up the etymology of a word, I'd like to know more than "Its first recorded use was in 1884 in the New York Tribune. The end." In short, why the hell is it "anchor", and what does that imply. Why not call him "chief reader", or "masthead"? AnnaGoFast (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Too much criticism

Half the darned article is long tedious paragraphs of "criticism." Can't we cut that down some? (Or eliminate it completely?) 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not only long, but the points being made are written largely in Wikipedia's own voice, making it non-neutral. Statements of opinion need to be specifically attributed to people or groups making them, not stated as facts. WP Ludicer (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Qualities of an anchor

objective, Authentic, Understandable, Clarity of words, Timeliness, speak like known, and good command on words Mallicktitiksha20 (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)