I don't think I've got
any pet hates. Well, apart from:
Two news-readers - why on Earth are they needed? Never mind that we've followed the USA - the
question still remains.
The appalling phraseology of so-called "weather presenters," including "spits and spots," "cloud bubbling up," "those temperatures" (temperature is a singular word), "as we go through the day," "if you're heading out" and so on,
ad nauseam.
"Over to you, Carol (or Hugh, or whoever)." I don't care who the presenter is, nor do I need, or want, to know their name, thank you.
"Thank you
very much indeed," said by the autocue slave in the studio to an OB reporter. Why? - it's their job and they've just delivered a mediocre summary of stuff the studio moron has already outlined. What are you going to say to them if they deliver something
really out of the ordinary?
"Still to come ... " Who cares? Just read it. Why to we have to be told what we're to
be told, then be
told it, then be told what we've
been told? I have an attention span slightly exceeding that of an amoeba and I
certainly don't need to be told that I'm going to get a weather forecast in 15 minutes. I KNOW where the forecast comes in relation to the overall running order, thanks.
The lack of the most basic and obvious continuity.
Factual errors and fictitious nouns, such as "contains linen extract" or "the scent of diamonds," "Bifidus Actiregularis" (a marketing name, generated by Danone).
"A report to be published tomorrow is expected to say ... " Well, WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW and tell us
exactly what it said, that way we'll get news, not speculation. This is becoming so prevalent, I wonder that programme titles are not changed to "The Nine 0'clock Speculation" and "Speculation at Ten."
So, nothing winds me up at all, really.
Ray