Is this sentence correct?

A good news reader (or news-reader?) can become a good newsreader

To get my point, look at these sentences -

If you are a good cricketer, the upcoming season is really good for you.

Here, I'm talking to a person who plays cricket well. The upcoming season is good for him in some ways.

If you are a keen learner, this tutorial is really good for you.

Here, I'm talking to a person who is quite good at learning things and thus, the tutorial is helpful to him.


If you are a good news reader, you can become a good newsreader.

Here, I'm talking to a person who reads news quite interestingly with perfect intonation and pronunciation. In other words, he's good at reading news.

Note: I'm not looking for an alternative sentence. Just want to discuss whether or not the sentence in concern is correct with some clarification of using two same words that make a noun (newsreader) as well as an (?)adjective (news-reader).

  • 5
    To me, a newsreader is an NNTP client. Although I'd understand the other meaning of newsreader in context, I'd never use it with that meaning.
    – user230
    Commented Aug 7, 2014 at 11:55
  • Arguably disturbing but correct in usage. My grandfather reads news really good with his awesome voice but I don't think he can catch the speed of a newsreader.. Commented Aug 7, 2014 at 12:28
  • @BerkerYüceer I guess it should be well in that grandpa's example instead of good
    – Maulik V
    Commented Aug 7, 2014 at 12:38
  • @MaulikV Thank you! I am no expert but pretty sure this sentence of yours is correct. Not in meaning but in grammar. Commented Aug 7, 2014 at 12:51
  • 3
    The American edition of Collins labels newsreader as mainly British. I don't recall hearing the term before. In the U.S., we'd probably use the term news anchor to convey the same thing.
    – J.R.
    Commented Aug 7, 2014 at 18:15

1 Answer 1


It is grammatically and semantically correct, but by itself doesn't clearly communicate what you want it to mean.

If you're intending to use it in a context where being confusing is good—for example, it's a playful title for an article and you want people to read the article to find out what the confusing title is supposed to mean—then that's fine and it works! If you want it to be clearly understandable on its own though, it won't convey what you want it to.

The reason it's going to be confusing is because the simplest understanding of "a good news reader" is being good at understanding the news you read. The meaning you intend, being good at reading the news aloud, is a correct alternative meaning of the words, but it's rarer. An audience is unlikely to guess that something should be read with a rarer meaning when the more common meaning is also grammatically and semantically correct.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .