Ditch the meaningless adverbs (seriously!)
On journalism, economical writing, and the "one weird trick" that would make much of today's writing better but less clickbait-effective
One of the classic standards of news writing was that journalists should use adverbs sparingly, if at all. This rule sounds stodgy at first -- after all, we use adverbs in regular speech, so why not in reporting as well? But it makes sense upon further examination.
■ First, they’re often more filler than substance. She ran quickly? Of course it was “quickly”, she ran. He screamed loudly? It would have been news if the scream was quiet, not loud. Economical writing skips what doesn’t add value.
■ Second, adverbs are unaccountable. Who is to say what is done gracefully, thoughtfully, or mercilessly? The adverb is most often a judgment call. The fewer the subjective statements, the more objective the report.
■ There is one adverb in particular that needs to be struck -- unrelentingly -- from modern news reporting: “Strongly”. Some journalists can’t get enough of it: In just one report, CNN said that the President “strongly criticized Pope Leo XIV”, the Pope “strongly pushed back”, and the Italian minister “strongly denounced the US president’s comments”. Strange that so much strength can result in such weak writing.
■ When an incident can be more truthfully depicted with an adverb, the writer should go right ahead and use it. But an adverb like “strongly” could mean anything from “loudly” to “emphatically” to “thoroughly” to “exhaustively”, all of which might be better adverbs (being more specific than “strongly”), but none of which are necessary...probably. “Strongly” has become a filler word for the clickbait era, and it ought to be retired. Quickly.