I was watching a supposedly secular local affiliate of CBS here in Portland las night, and they were reporting on the Pope’s public statement that people should pray, then vote their conscience. After the video was finished, the local reporter said, “Sounds like a good idea to me!” and his female cohort chimed in with “Sounds like a good idea for everybody.”
My good idea is that they stick to reporting the news, and leave the editorializing to others.
Is that a personal opinion at the end of your report?
That’s my person opinion containing a report. 
No, I disagree – what you describe clearly is offered as a personal opinion following the (presumably) factual reporting segment. I think there’s a wide range of debate to be had about personal opinion disguised as reporting, or influencing reporting, or influencing the choice of subjects reported upon, all of which are more pernicious threats than the unambiguous event you describe, where the reporter shares a clearly demarked personal reaction.
Of course, because they agreed with the Pope, their statements gave you God cooties. I get that.
Local news anchors always add color commentary. I don’t see the issue if it’s small stuff like this. They’re entertainers, not robots, part of their job is connecting with the audience, and if their audience is about 97% old white people like I suspect it is, mild Christianity isn’t likely to hurt their bottom line.
“After 2 hours, the fire department was able to free Mr. Snuffles from the drain pipe.”
“Wow, what an uplifting story, Bob.”
“Well that’s, like, your opinion, Deborah.”
This seems like a sensible opinion to me.
Just stick to the news naita. We don’t pay you for your opinion. 
To the OP, I’m not nearly as bothered by what you describe as I am the, IMHO, proliferation of opinions and leading words in written news articles. When I read a news articles, I just want the facts. The editorial page is for opinions and rhetoric.
"After the break: GOD COOTIES - could they kill your houseplants?"
And if the news reporter had commented immediately after the video that he didn’t think praying was necessary to make an informed opinion, that wouldn’t have created a tempest in a teapot?
Your latest check for me bounced. Until I receive payment in full I’ll skip the news and only give my opinion.
No. As a reporter, I was taught to never use an adjective unless empirically measureable. A fire is a fire – give facts about its extent and let the reader decide if it is a big fire or not. A ten-foot pole, but not a long pole. An unlit street, but not a dark street. A victim is not in critical condition until the hospital formally lists his condition as critical according to medical standards.
The one that really grates on me is the news readers who use words like “unfortunately”. Explain how the child was cut in half by a chain saw, and let the listener decide if that was bad luck or not. “Good news from Wall Street today” means the rich got richer, and I don’t need a news anchor to tell me if that is good news or not.
I don’t mind one-liners thrown out as a sort of bridge out of a story like that. One thing that always annoyed me in local news reports/hours, and one that seems to have died off over the years, was the Andy-Rooney-like opinion pieces that used to get inflicted on us almost every day. Sometimes by the “station manager” and sometimes a reporter. For some reason, from the time I was little, those really ticked me off.
Walter Cronkite gave opinions I wanted to hear. Precious few reporters have since.
I on the other hand much appreciated it when opinions were done separately, and designated as such. You knew what was going to happen and either listen to it or ignore it.
I’m old enough to remember Walter Cronkite and the Moon missions, but not old enough to remember his editorialising. I know, from clips and documentaries, that he did, especially during the war in Vietnam, and he was famously emotional when Kennedy was assassinated. But it seems to me that ‘newscasters’ (Is that what they were called?) pretty much delivered the facts in a calm, detached manner. I’d rather the talking heads emulate [my childhood memories of] Walter Cronkite, and let viewers come to their own conclusions. (But that would require people to think, and that seems to be too hard for a significant number of people.)
And it really did help you understand/explain whatever bias that particular station had in its reporting. But for some reason it just went past all that for me and straight to the irritation factor.
Still a requirement for news broadcasting in the UK. But there are always arguments about whether they can be too unquestioningly impartial as between two sides of a debate.
What’s in the OP has irritated me for a very long time and it is what made me stop watching the news in the first place. I could just feel the lack of professionalism engulfing everything.
I have caught the evening news some more since I gave up on it, but then it was pissing me off for replacing “news” with YouTube videos. And now it has replaced interviewing people with Twitter quotes.
Basically every time I watch news on TV (local and national) I’m “over it” in short time.
In Cleveland there’s a beat writer for the baseball team who interrupted his daily reports on the team to write a clickbait-y headline about how the team’s playoffs were over when one of our pitchers broke his hand. A bunch of people went nuts about his proclamation on its own but I was doubly offended by him sneaking this opinion piece into the inches of the paper where he is supposed to be writing the facts of the game.
Locally there’s a guy who used to be the mayor of the next town over but got voted out. Some lady who is continually trying to make a regional blog take off started her 3rd or 4th such blog site recently and signed this ex mayor guy up as “a reporter.” This guy writes the most opinion-full “news articles” with tons of adjectives and exclamation points and phrases like “When I was mayor…” and “This reporter…” He writes about 3 of these “articles” a day. It’d be all well and good to just admire them as a fun hobby blog except the dude is out there “covering” mundane newsy events like city council meetings, and their website name has the word “news” in it.
Getting back to little closing sentences thrown out by TV news anchors…I mean, clearly that’s not as bad as the newspaper/blog examples I gave but it just feels to me like the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this new normal in “journalism.” Or rather, pseudo-journalism where everyone has an opinion and a slant on news and anyone can call themselves a journalist, until they are attacked and all of a sudden they are just pundits (Bill-O, Hannity, et al)
I graduated in 2000 with a BA in journalism, for what it’s worth. Not gonna say I am some “real journalist” because I ditched the degree and went in to technology instead but even with my little 4 years of experience I can tell that what’s going on is not right and not good.
It would have created a tempest with you. Unless you have some examples of where a news person said that prayer wasn’t necessary, and you objected to the inclusion of opinion in a newscast.
Regards,
Shodan
IMHO this sort of thing sounds unprofessional, but I strongly suspect that the majority of viewers of local newscasts value personability over professionalism. If you’re a local news anchor, the best way to get ratings and keep your job is, not to be as cool and detached as possible, but to be likable and “make a connection” with the viewers who invite you into their homes each day.