> You're welcome to try to invent your own language.
What I'm doing with "news-teller" (or news teller) is not inventing my own language at all, and I don't appreciate dismissive or snarky remarks, especially when they're incorrect.
From a grammatical standpoint, "news-teller" is perfectly valid, English freely allows such noun-noun compounds. It's not an arbitrary invention, but a natural, transparent compound formed from two common, easily understood words. English has always created new terms this way (storyteller, truth-teller, lawgiver, bookseller), and while "news-teller" is not standard, it follows established morphological patterns. Because both components are familiar, most speakers would grasp its meaning immediately, arguably more so today than with the now-archaic "herald". You can even check Google's Books Ngram Viewer. Check for "news teller" and "herald".
The fact that "news-teller" isn't in widespread use does NOT make it "invented language". It makes it an uncommon but legitimate formation under the existing rules of English. If you doubt that, you could ask people whether they understand "herald" and then ask if they understand "news-teller". If you ask "news-teller" first, they will probably infer it means the same thing, so avoid that.
In any case, I already said I am fine with "reporter" or "announcer", and that I was providing a literal translation that everyone understands over "herald". This is literally the essence of my point, which is not the one being argued. Was I wrong in believing this literal translation is better (see: easier to understand) than "herald'?