tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post5041830977701317271..comments2024-03-28T16:11:36.465+00:00Comments on Separated by a Common Language: anchorman and news reader lynneguisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-30936790450465654492023-01-21T17:30:35.735+00:002023-01-21T17:30:35.735+00:00Thanks for the explanation of compère. Yes, that w...Thanks for the explanation of <i>compère</i>. Yes, that was a poor word choice by the OED, even for the old editions when they assumed a British audience. I'm glad to see that the Third Edition revised <i>anchor</i> in 2019, and the definition for that sense is now better:<br /><br />Originally <i>U.S.</i> A person who presents and coordinates a live television or radio programme, esp. a news or sports programme, alongside other contributors. Cf. anchorman n. 5, anchorwoman n. 3. See also Compounds 1d. Frequently with modifying word indicating the type of programme presented. Cf. news anchor n. at news n. Compounds 3.<br /><br />("Compounds 1d" is attributive uses such as <i>anchor desk</i>, <i>anchor role</i>, etc.)ktschwarznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-13584790230296384172023-01-20T21:01:44.979+00:002023-01-20T21:01:44.979+00:00I'm an American living in the UK and I had an ...I'm an American living in the UK and I had an odd conversation with a woman who had visited the Vanderbilt mansion in Newport, RI. In this conversation I mentioned Anderson Cooper, Gloria Vanderbilt's son who is now a TV broadcast journalist of considerable notoriety in the USA, who anchors his own show on CNN. She was curious and surprised she didn't know a Vanderbilt was currently so prominent on television and asked a few questions about him. When I explained that he anchored a show she wanted to distinguish whether or not he was just a presenter or a journalist, and I answered that he is both. It seemed to me that she didn't consider the main presenters of news programs (or anchors) to be journalists. Whereas, I would assume that the people who anchor news programs have achieved a very coveted position and the penultimate goal of any journalist, especially in this day and age when most within the field of journalism might struggle to make a living and newspapers are closing their doors. I would also assume that the anchors of news programs have had decades of education and experience and hard earned promotion within the field of journalism. They are of course journalists of the highest caliber. And, they must have a depth of knowledge and expertise on numerous subjects ranging from politics to economics to current affairs in order to speak coherently, and ask pertinent and concise questions during live interviews. `Of course they must also have the guts and wherewithal to ask difficult questions in difficult situations and remain calm. I am too young to remember Walter Kronkite, but I think now of Katie Couric interviewing presidents and Norah O'Donnell interviewing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This blog and comment thread does confirm for me that in fact Brits do not respect the TV news presenters or think of them as anything more than voice artists, which I find truly odd. This was also confirmed by criticism of the BBC for sending Clive Myrie to Ukraine in the early days of the Russian invasion, in essence saying why send a presenter to do a journalist's job. The BBC defended its choice by stating that Clive Myrie IS a respected journalist, and has been for 30 years. Lastly, a lot of this thread of comments is about semantics. What does the term newsreader imply ? To us Americans who do not use this term it implies someone who ONLY reads the news but does not necessarily contribute to the story or even necessarily understand it. Whereas, the term anchor, as explored earlier in the thread with the sports references, implies a key figure of great importance. In other words, the contributor of the utmost weight. Weighty like a ship's anchor. The anchor which provides stability and reliability. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-817243175500335882013-11-26T03:35:08.064+00:002013-11-26T03:35:08.064+00:00Anonymous
You can't explain to us Brits what ...Anonymous<br /><br />You can't explain to us Brits what Cronkite was without using the notion of <i>newsreader</i>. That's what we understand.<br /><br />Reading the news may have been only part of his role, but it's the part we recognise and respect.<br /><br />Explaining his role through the term <i>anchor</i> makes him sound comparatively trivial. That's why Simon Hattenstone unthinkingly used the world to describe the trivial role performed by Piers Morgan.<br /><br />You say that 'any fool can read the news'. Well yes, but that doesn't make him or her a <i>newsreader</i>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-7278220422295243032013-11-26T00:57:06.454+00:002013-11-26T00:57:06.454+00:00Except, Anonymous, that 'newsreader' isn&#...Except, Anonymous, that 'newsreader' isn't a title that's used in the US. (There are only 29 examples in the Corpus of Contemporary American English, most of which are by or referring to English people. Compare 689 for 'news anchor' and 404 for 'anchorman'.) So it doesn't make a lot of sense to put it on a totem pole of AmE job titles.<br /><br />The thing about Cronkite, for me, is that he was Cronkite. No one else had the same authority and humanity that he did at that time, or maybe even since. I feel lucky to have grown up with him on my television...lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-81710823392021757432013-11-25T23:16:44.370+00:002013-11-25T23:16:44.370+00:00David,
In short, Cronkite wasn't given the tas...David,<br />In short, Cronkite wasn't given the task of announcing it by anyone; he was the person in charge who made the decision to announce it. That is the role of the anchor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-47585117277210802322013-11-25T23:11:02.249+00:002013-11-25T23:11:02.249+00:00David Crosbie,
An anchor is an experienced journal...David Crosbie,<br />An anchor is an experienced journalist who oversees the collection, writing, and editing of the news by a team, which he then presents. He or she doesn't simply read copy, he or she decides what will be on the news. I could be a news reader, although not a very good one. I could never be an anchor. <br />Walter Cronkite was the person who made the call that the news flash was credible, and decided when and how to put it on the air. The fact that he also presented it doesn't make him a reader, who is simply reading copy someone else has written. That comes across as demeaning and insulting, when referring to our much-revered Cronkite. I believe his official title was managing editor. <br />The present-day anchors such as Brian Williams and Gwen Ifill also fill these much larger roles than simply being readers. Any fool can read the news. Cronkite WAS the authority. I think what you are calling an anchor is what we would call a host, who may relay breaking news, while in the course of hosting a talk show, but essentially repeats what he's told by others, which I believe is the point of the post. So, for us in the US, in order of importance, experience, and authority, from highest to least: <br />1. Anchor <br />2. Host <br />3. News reader<br />Hope this helps!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-39368071762144600052013-11-25T19:43:06.970+00:002013-11-25T19:43:06.970+00:00I've been doing a thought experiment...
Suppo...I've been doing a thought experiment...<br /><br />Supposing that some very important politician were assassinated while a British news magazine programme were on air. And suppose the programme to be one with a presenter (or two) in a role analogous to a US TV <b>anchor</b>. I reckon things would happen in this sequence:<br /><br />1. A text flash would announce that X <b>is reported</b> to have been assassinated.<br /><br />2. The anchor-type presenter would inform us of the reports.<br /><br />3. The news reader would announce it. <br /><br />For us Brits, it's [3] that counts. Only a news reader has the authority to turn hearsay into reality.<br /><br />We can't imaging how Walter Cronkite could have been <b>a lesser figure than a news reader</b>, and yet be given the task of announcing such a historic event.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-8294175240741813962013-11-24T01:57:04.806+00:002013-11-24T01:57:04.806+00:00Anonymous
have been trying to explain exactly t...Anonymous<br /><br /><i> have been trying to explain exactly this difference to my Brit friends who keep calling Walter Cronkite (Walter Cronkite!) a newsreader. No, no, no!</i><br /><br />Well, <i>No, no, no!</i> is hardly an explanation. In what way is being an anchorman incompatible with being a newsreader?David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-70147011435042992612013-11-23T22:55:33.412+00:002013-11-23T22:55:33.412+00:00In light of the 50th anniversary of JFK's assa...In light of the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination and all the coverage of the period, have been trying to explain exactly this difference to my Brit friends who keep calling Walter Cronkite (Walter Cronkite!) a newsreader. No, no, no!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-33182399074794872962013-10-25T05:27:01.234+01:002013-10-25T05:27:01.234+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.AdminNethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04504975058590407234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-48762612170809523692013-10-17T10:34:53.988+01:002013-10-17T10:34:53.988+01:00"Wireless" use to comic effect in this s..."Wireless" use to comic effect in this skit from the satirical show (was AmE) Not the Nine o'Clock News thirty-something years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZbQ3lTObas<br /><br />On the road<br /> You must be brave and tireless<br />On the road<br /> You can listen to the wireless<br /><br />enitharmonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17829757748223670291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-82910908574508438692013-10-17T01:02:16.084+01:002013-10-17T01:02:16.084+01:00Kate
I believe radio was the normal choice before...Kate<br /><br />I believe <i>radio</i> was the normal choice before a noun when referring to broadcast output. There was a comic called <i>Radio Fun</i>, not <i>Wireless Fun</i>, strangely full of adventures of people who no longer broadcasted. The auditorium inside Broadcasting House was (and still is) called <i>The Radio Theatre</i>, not <i>The Wireless Theatre</i>. I think I remember we spoke of <i>radio plays, radio talks, radio comedians</i> etc, not <i>wireless plays, wireless talks, wireless comedians</i> — although we might say <i>plays / talks / comedians <b>on the wireless</b></i>.<br /><br />This preference did not extend to the physical apparatus of broadcasting. We would, when I was very young, speak of <i>wireless sets, wireless masts, wireless repairs, wireless operators</i> etc — although <i>radio</i> was also a possibility.<br /><br /><i>Radio</i> was also the choice for naming a station — e.g. <i>Radio Luxembourg, Radio Eirann</i> etc. I don't think there was ever a name on the lines of <i>Wireless Ruritania</i>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-8758600644057168092013-10-16T17:54:48.113+01:002013-10-16T17:54:48.113+01:00I've always thought it odd that the BBC's ...I've always thought it odd that the BBC's listings journal has always been "Radio Times" even though, until the early '60s, we all talked about "the wireless". Kate Buntinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17223976536411967222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-54933191333060575982013-10-16T02:45:32.275+01:002013-10-16T02:45:32.275+01:00Anonymous
When the BBC started television broadca...Anonymous<br /><br />When the BBC started television broadcasts in the late 1930's, announcers were required to wear evening dress. The autocratic Director General, Lord Reith, insisted that the BBC must dress for dinner when it entered people's homes.<br /><br /> (Actually, there were so few television sets — all of them in the London area — than the rich trendy viewers did, many of them, lead that formal upper-middle class lifestyle. One of my uncles had a wireless+television set, not because he was rich and posh but because he was in the cinema business. It had a tiny eight inch screen, and was still working in 1953. I watched the Coronation on it) <br /><br />Male announcers would wear a BrE <i>dinner jacket</i> / AmE <i>tuxedo</i> — but only the jacket, not the dress trousers.<br /><br />Annabel<br /><br />Yes I too grew up with the phrase <i>on the wireless</i> and the object <i>a wireless set</i>. The former is still occasionally used in a facetious way of speaking. And, allegedly, by some even older than me who are set in their ways. But I haven't said or heard <i>wireless set</i> for a very, very long time.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-68202003152165104372013-10-15T19:38:32.294+01:002013-10-15T19:38:32.294+01:00One local 5:00 news program (in Chicago) is shot i...One local 5:00 news program (in Chicago) is shot in a studio with windows out to the sidewalk, so passersby can clearly see that the anchormen are wearing coats and ties above their desk, and jeans and sneakers below. They'd probably rather not stand up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-83826945142894555912013-10-15T18:40:07.177+01:002013-10-15T18:40:07.177+01:00Thanks, David. I grew up calling it "The wir...Thanks, David. I grew up calling it "The wireless", but by the time I left school I said "radio" like most people. <br /><br />I think the BBC used to call them newsreaders, didn't it, and ITN said "newscaster"? These days, of course, they are all "presenters", which is such a catch-all term that it irritates me rather.Mrs Redboots (Annabel Smyth)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11270027663691257254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-24122981042519895962013-10-15T15:22:14.034+01:002013-10-15T15:22:14.034+01:00Some Wikipedia contributors discuss many of the te...Some Wikipedia contributors discuss many of the terms mentioned on this thread under the heading <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_presenter" rel="nofollow">News presenter</a>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-46607386743259744022013-10-15T15:07:57.601+01:002013-10-15T15:07:57.601+01:00In Walter Cronkite's autobiography, he said b...In Walter Cronkite's autobiography, he said believes he was the one dubbed (not by himself) as an anchorman re his role at both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions in 1952. Roger Owen Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05298172138307632062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-23305320996402733032013-10-15T14:58:02.179+01:002013-10-15T14:58:02.179+01:00Annabel
The earliest quote in the OED is from 193...Annabel<br /><br />The earliest quote in the OED is from 1930, describing an American broadcaster<br /><br /><i>Graham MacNamee, the news-caster of our American newspaper newsreel, takes the part of an unseen dramatist.</i><br /><br />This quote from 1972 mixes the word with a term that must even then have sounded archaic: <b>wireless set</b>:<br /><br /><i>He, too, momentarily disbelieved the B.B.C. newscaster... The wireless set continued to broadcast the news item.</i><br /><br />The OED reports that <i>newscaster</i> was also used to denote an illuminated display of news headlines etc.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-2135892514579900322013-10-15T13:14:19.959+01:002013-10-15T13:14:19.959+01:00Way back in the days before the main evening news ...Way back in the days before the main evening news on both BBC1 and ITV1 (there was only one ITV channel back then!) were at the same time, we sometimes watched the ITV news if our evening viewing worked out that way. They used to sign off by saying the "Newscaster" was, and then give the person's name. <br /><br />Is "Newscaster" originally AmE, or was it something ITN made up?Mrs Redboots (Annabel Smyth)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11270027663691257254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-70261596745326411612013-10-15T00:17:09.811+01:002013-10-15T00:17:09.811+01:00Lynne
Morgan is, in AmE terms, a talk show host....Lynne<br /><br /><i> Morgan is, in AmE terms, a talk show host. As discussed a bit before <a href="http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/seasons-and-series.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, the American understanding of talk shows is broader than the BrE notion of chat shows. American use talk shows for serious, newsy interviews and topics as well as for entertainment. </i><br /><br />Unfortunately that link doesn't help British readers much. However, the point made here about talk shows being (possibly) serious does explain the difference. There's discussion in <a href="http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/not-one-off-britishisms.html" rel="nofollow">this thread</a>, but that tells us more about frequency.<br /><br />The reason we use different terms for television roles is that our television is so different. I can't think of anything that corresponds to US <b>talk shows</b> as described in the blog. Nor can I think of regular use of <b>anchormen</b> as here described. I say 'regular' because the term would seem to cover what British TV presenters do in the studio when there's a major election programme with results and reports coming in with a need for coordination and summary by a single broadcaster.<br /><br />For most news and current affairs programmes, there was a shift in British television way from studio journalists taking to experts in the studio — a practice dismissed as <i>'talking heads'</i>. There's been a return to something more like the old practice with the rise of 24 hour news. Plus, the newsreaders now work in pairs in American fashion and they do a lot more interviewing. But the term <b>anchor</b> hasn't caught on. I think because we still see the presenters as <b>mouthpieces</b> set in motion by their editors receiving running orders from the director through their earphones.<br /><br />Yes, we have lots of serious programmes with lots of talk held together by a figurehead broadcaster, usually with a background in journalism. We call him or her a <b>presenter</b>.<br /><br />Piers Morgan is still identified here as a <i>former tabloid editor</i> with a new — and still somewhat surprising — role as an <b>interviewer</b>.<br /><br />A British <b>chat show</b> has an <b>interviewer</b> also known as a <b>host</b> talking — for purposes of entertainment — to a number of <b>guests</b>.<br /><br />We Brits may have confused the roles of US television <b>host</b> and <b>anchor</b>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-61703444450575257732013-10-15T00:16:38.455+01:002013-10-15T00:16:38.455+01:00Lynne
Morgan is, in AmE terms, a talk show host....Lynne<br /><br /><i> Morgan is, in AmE terms, a talk show host. As discussed a bit before <a href="http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/seasons-and-series.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, the American understanding of talk shows is broader than the BrE notion of chat shows. American use talk shows for serious, newsy interviews and topics as well as for entertainment. </i><br /><br />Unfortunately that link doesn't help British readers much. However, the point made here about talk shows being (possibly) serious does explain the difference. There's discussion in <a href="http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/not-one-off-britishisms.html" rel="nofollow">this thread</a>, but that tells us more about frequency.<br /><br />The reason we use different terms for television roles is that our television is so different. I can't think of anything that corresponds to US <b>talk shows</b> as described in the blog. Nor can I think of regular use of <b>anchormen</b> as here described. I say 'regular' because the term would seem to cover what British TV presenters do in the studio when there's a major election programme with results and reports coming in with a need for coordination and summary by a single broadcaster.<br /><br />For most news and current affairs programmes, there was a shift in British television way from studio journalists taking to experts in the studio — a practice dismissed as <i>'talking heads'</i>. There's been a return to something more like the old practice with the rise of 24 hour news. Plus, the newsreaders now work in pairs in American fashion and they do a lot more interviewing. But the term <b>anchor</b> hasn't caught on. I think because we still see the presenters as <b>mouthpieces</b> set in motion by their editors receiving running orders from the director through their earphones.<br /><br />Yes, we have lots of serious programmes with lots of talk held together by a figurehead broadcaster, usually with a background in journalism. We call him or her a <b>presenter</b>.<br /><br />Piers Morgan is still identified here as a <i>former tabloid editor</i> with a new — and still somewhat surprising — role as an <b>interviewer</b>.<br /><br />A British <b>chat show</b> has an <b>interviewer</b> also known as a <b>host</b> talking — for purposes of entertainment — to a number of <b>guests</b>.<br /><br />We Brits may have confused the roles of US television <b>host</b> and <b>anchor</b>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-7624487153357805712013-10-14T16:06:40.260+01:002013-10-14T16:06:40.260+01:00I can't speak for Mindy, of course, but if I h...I can't speak for Mindy, of course, but if I had to guess the reason for the exclamation mark,it would be because he's generally not particularly well liked here in the US. I've never heard/read anything from anyone who enjoys his show, but have seen headlines of lots of complaints about it. It may stem from cultural differences that don't translate well, but the consensus seems to be that he comes across as smug and superior, the sort of person who loves to tell everyone else how much more he knows than they do and all the things they should change. I don't watch him, so this is hearsay rather than observation.PWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-15916599100346587782013-10-14T13:14:19.230+01:002013-10-14T13:14:19.230+01:00Mindy
Why the exclamation mark?
I know he's...Mindy<br /><br />Why the exclamation mark? <br /><br />I know he's a talk show host. Simon Hatterstpne knows he's a talk show host. What neither of us knew was the precise definition of <i>anchorman</i> as understood in the US television industry. That's what made it a suitable subject for Lynne's blog.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-87859137907419217552013-10-14T13:13:17.022+01:002013-10-14T13:13:17.022+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.com