Straight from the script

Unsuccessful trial litigant: "I just want to say how disturbed I am at the outcome of this case and to assure that we will take all possible future steps to correct this grievous imbalance of fairness".

Perpetrator of a mishap: "Please try to understand I would wish that this distressing situation had never occurred and that it be remedied as quickly and effectively as possible".

Sportsman: "I'm truly remorseful for the harm I brought on the club and its resultant standing in the public's eyes".

Bureaucrat: "It is important to confirm within the context of emerging action in this matter, that resolutions taken may be less than desired. However, the rights of individuals enshrined in the relevant Act must be preserved in all cases coming before the Minister".

Guess what? I don't believe these insincere, rehearsed scripted statements which appear on TV news broadcasts.

They're false, contrived, completely incredible, or don't do what the original need required – deliver a frank, genuine expression of attitude or position.

Yet they are becoming increasingly commonplace in our world of speeded-up, precisely worded expressions of insight, deliberation, or belief.

Gone are times when a televised appearance gave a guide to the thoughts of the speaker, and the appearance's outcome the direct result of that person's true character. Now, the result is due to how well someone can write a credible piece of copy and read it (or have it read) on camera.

What the heck's wrong with speaking simply, clearly, and straight to the point instead of attempting to enshroud the statement in a mantle of obscure formality. Fellas - this is television, not radio. You can be seen, as well as heard! And I, for one, don't like what I see.

I never see it in the professional presenters or journalists who appear in the stories; they either have worked out thoroughly what they intend to say, or use 'idiot cards' off-camera, often containing just bullet points.

Perhaps public relations "advisors" have decided that having a script works better than being natural and responsive, but the technique is becoming a habit, and increasingly boring. There is very little of the close-up contact which comes straight from the heart directly to the viewer getting a message.

Oh no, the speakers read from scripts in the era of the carefully written ad-lib!

Now there is nothing wrong with speakers using notes to prompt their memory, even those written on the back of envelopes in the style alleged to have been used by Abe Lincoln for his Gettysburg Address. Very few people except competent actors have the ability to remember large amounts of complicated dialogue. Notes are a useful tool, but just that. They're a tool to building the story, not its entire presentation.

There was once a time when impromptu speaking functioned well, often being the sign of an effective, believable narrator. Alas no longer. Now, it's stage-managed delivery from a prepared script.

Whatever happened to naturalness, to the ability to speak off-the cuff; to communicate quickly, effectively and believably? Maybe it's due to a fear of not delivering a statement flawlessly, of stumbling, of being human, thus authentic.

Face-to-face contact without looking down at a script is a key element in successful communication; it allows for minute subtleties of body language and speech delivery to give the viewer an impression about a speaker's credibility and honesty.

Would you accept a TV commercial presenter who did not look you straight in the eye when exhorting you to buy something? Would you tolerate a stage or film drama with actors reading straight off a script instead of looking at each other? Or more importantly, looking directly at you?

Speaking believably takes skill and lots of experience. Anyone can pick up a piece of paper and just read its contents either on camera, or during a mass meeting. But that's not strong, effective messaging.

It's just a demonstration of an ability to read out loud, saying nothing about the truth or competence of the orator. It's a distraction when I watch a report and wonder who wrote the words, and when.

This is not unlike listening to a recorded call-on-hold phone message telling you how your call is very important, to please wait for the next available operator, and how much they value your custom.

Bullshit, but beautifully spoken.

It can be a boost to credibility if a speaker refers occasionally to notes; it shows that an amount of careful forethought and preparation has gone into the delivery of the communication, but the total dependence on a script shows the exact reverse – uncertainty, incompetence, inability, and falsity.

Similarly, unless a person often talks in public, there's nothing wrong with him or her seeming to be a normal, average speaker, stumbling a little, being hesitant and showing that they're genuine instead of trying to act out a role in the mistaken belief that the perfect delivery equates to sincerity.

Or does this trend of delivering a scripted televised statement or an interview mean that an autocue will be an essential a tool for anybody wishing to appear as authentic during a news story? Perhaps it could mean that in the future when blind people are making T.V. appearances, they'll read from a Braille script, just to give their remarks authenticity.

Next time that you see and hear personal statements being delivered this way instead of flowing naturally during a broadcast, think how you would go about doing the same thing.

Would you read from a script, or speak from your heart?