Announcer Voice: The Contentious Accent of the Airwaves

When putting one’s voice out into the public ear, one needs to consider how to project their voice to properly convey the subject matter at hand, for listeners are quick to judge not only what one says but how they say it. Knowing this, broadcasters of radio and other voice related media outlets have developed a specific accent commonly known as “announcer voice” since the medium’s inception that presents the cordialness and confidence a general audience desires. However, points of contention have been raised against having a specific voice set to govern broadcasting media as a whole, challenging the idea that one supposedly needs to adhere to this accent in order to see success in the field. In reality, the accent of the airwaves has always been adaptive and continues to evolve in conjunction with the medium itself to better accommodate a wide range of audiences.

In present times, the “announcer voice” has manifested as a combination of broadcasting hosts featured on some of the highest rated radio shows and podcasts alike. In accordance with the Babbel website, the most recent variant of "announcer voice" to have taken storm stems primarily from NPR and the immense popularity the network’s achieved. This NPR variant can be described as involving long pauses between words and sentences, strong emphasis on certain words relevant to the topic, and a generally rich baritone. The success seen with this emphasis on resonance and cadence to produce authoritative conveyance is what has resulted in the mimicry of many other related networks. As a result of this homogenizing, many entering the world of broadcasting can find it difficult to set foot in the field if their voices do not match the standard. Contentions have since sparked regarding how the voices that make up broadcasting should or shouldn't be regulated, whether a singular or many diverse voices should envelope the medium.

Discrimination in the world of radio/broadcasting has been a issue for those with unique accents attempting to make a name for themselves in the field even today. Accent discrimination is a subconscious but prevalent phenomenon of employers that leads to quick judgments and stereotypes about others’ performance potential and subsequent ratings. People with foreign accents can find it harder to establish themselves in the business as they are typically perceived to be less trustworthy, successful and intelligent in deviating from the commonly established “announcer voice”. For example, Jesus Lopez, a meteorologist, was asked to fill in for an anchor on an English-Speaking station. Originating from Venezuela, his accent was certainly a departure from the typical host, but he managed to perform just as well as any professional anchor, speaking fluently and smoothly on air. Despite this, initial responses to this change were those of outrage and blatant racist remarks, listeners imploring the network not to have him featured further. This also illustrates how audiences too take issue with those “defying” the “announcer voice”, tuned-in listeners perhaps having even more bearing over hiring decisions as employers often reflect their opinions off the audience that keeps them in business. Ideologies like these make it tough for those with an “atypical” accent to enter the verbal broadcasting profession; “failing” to abide by the expected norm unfairly puts them at a disadvantage against the linguistic shaming that problematizes their speaking.

I find these linguistic ideologies to be downright baseless in reality when simply considering the massive success seen from Youtube and Spotify content creators of today differing greatly from the norm of radio, as well as the original “announcer voice” developed since the beginning of radio. The “announcer voice” of old, while recognizable in a vacuum, is quite distinguishable from what we hear today: some stand out features include a higher pitched voice, speaking in fragments of sentences with punctuated pauses, and incorporation of a Mid-Atlantic accent. These different aspects can be attributed to the facilitation for poor technology of the times and the perceived posh nature of the British accent sounding more “intelligent”. Comparing this to the “announcer voice” of the present, significant alterations have been made in light of changes in society. We now live in an age where technology is no longer really an obstacle and more people are embracing the diversity of others, there’s no need to have only one means of communicating and oversimplifying the media landscape. Acceptance of a wide variety of accents in media grants greater opportunities in the broadcasting profession and better engages voices of the underrepresented.

Taking into consideration all that I have learned in this course, those involved in the world of verbal broadcasting shouldn't be forced to uphold a specific set of standards that otherwise deviates from their personal dialect. So long as the information is delivered with efficiency, clarity, and an overall passionate demeanor, one’s accent should not inherently bar them from taking up such a position just because it stands out from the plethora of others in the field, nor should one have to face unsubstantiated criticism solely on the basis of their “atypical” accent as if it outright takes away from the content itself. Accents are always evolving and variance should be a welcoming aspect to observe how the linguistics of today compare to that of tomorrow, making for an incredibly diverse media experience wherein all types of voices can be heard.

Sources:

https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/announcer-voice

https://www.bakersfield.com/columnists/jose-gaspar/jose-gaspar-tv-weather-forecaster-takes-a-chance-viewers-wont-mind-her-accent/article_d33a00e8-876b-11ec-bcfc-77ae70495100.htm