Example A: Our Claude Deforest has a special report on patient abuse at such and such hospital. Claude does his 3 minutes and upon conclusion, anchor inserts automatic, Thanks Claude!
Thanks for what? Claude was working. Better yet, that's what Claude does. So, really, thanks is not only superficial, but dim-witted. This is nit-picky? No not really. It's calling out laziness.
Count the number of times anchors toss to the sportsguy and utter the ubiquitous thanks Denny after Denny is done. Thanks for what? Thanks for giving us the sports and now it's time to get to hell back to news, thanks though.
It's not just relegated to sports; weather is automatic thanks territory. Thanks Spence for that timely forecast. Gag me.
If anchors could learn a simple rule and simply stray back into news and refrain from thanks-mode, it would not only make for a more fluid newscast, thus, maintaining the pace and dissing the bullshit thanks and get on with it, it would also cut down on severe case of over thanksville. Most viewers with half a brain hate it and only further perpetuates the Ron Burgundy image of local TV News.
Thanks Bud, Thanks Mary, Thanks Gene is not only a local phenomenon--it is a national irritance. Even King Wolf Blitzer over at CNN is a thanks abuser. He should know better, maybe he should get out of the Situation Room every now and then, (thanks Rich, I'll work on it.)
Have a nice day and thanks for reading.
*Follow me on Twitter.