Instead of voice overs. It sounds so stupid and dramatic and almost a tad bit insulting... Like i wanna listen to how the person sounds like while i read the translation. It just makes me think of some lame propaganda when they decide to dub over people.
I mean how hard is it to friggin read? You were learnt that in elementary school so it shouldn't be a problem
Just one video as an example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1A9XaHlrLY
I can tell you that I'd also prefere if there were subtitles, but there is a reason for there to be voice-over instead. The fact is that most people just listen to the news, instead of watching. People just turn on the TV on the news channel and go on to do something else; also, the most part of the audience of news programs watch it when it's tuned on a TV when they get a coffee, have lunch, etc.
You may have noticed that whenever there is some interesting footage, the anchor gives some warning, they say stuff like: "Here is a video recorded by a bystander/our team was at the place and got some footage of the event/the police have given us a copy of the suspect's mugshot". They say those things so people will look, see what they want to see and go back to what they are doing. Not everyone stares at the TV during the news.
Subtitles would be nice, but they just wouldn't work.
At 10/31/18 08:55 AM, Xuvero wrote: I can tell you that I'd also prefere if there were subtitles, but there is a reason for there to be voice-over instead. The fact is that most people just listen to the news, instead of watching. People just turn on the TV on the news channel and go on to do something else; also, the most part of the audience of news programs watch it when it's tuned on a TV when they get a coffee, have lunch, etc.
You may have noticed that whenever there is some interesting footage, the anchor gives some warning, they say stuff like: "Here is a video recorded by a bystander/our team was at the place and got some footage of the event/the police have given us a copy of the suspect's mugshot". They say those things so people will look, see what they want to see and go back to what they are doing. Not everyone stares at the TV during the news.
Subtitles would be nice, but they just wouldn't work.
Well i mean i see your argument. But isnt there radio for that stuff. If not then there is webpage news for it if one dont have the time.
Radio is "reporting what one says" TV news i think should just be reporting and when interviewing i prefer guy talking with subtitles if its a foreign language. I just feel it gets too overdramatic and almost like disingenious when they do it like that.
Like i see what you mean... but i dont agree 100% on that
At 10/31/18 11:27 PM, RightTime wrote: I'll add a slightly unreasonable reason to Xuvero's perfectly reasonable one. Not everyone who watches the news can read. There are an estimated 781 million illiterate adults (aged 15+) in the world according to UNESCO. Many of those people still watch television news. For them subtitles wouldn't be very useful.
There's also dyslexic people and shortsighted people who haven't put on their glasses.
There's also dyslexic people and shortsighted people who haven't put on their glasses.
Hmm... still radio though. Teaching people to read is better in my view
At 11/1/18 01:48 PM, Crono321 wrote:There's also dyslexic people and shortsighted people who haven't put on their glasses.Hmm... still radio though. Teaching people to read is better in my view
Well, yeah, radio, but that doesn't have pictures, obviously. And how the fuck do you teach a dyslexic person to read better? It is literally a disorder which makes it harder for one to read. And please, please either tag me or quote my name when replying to me.
