Journalists should not waste words. Their writing should be concise and tight. Adjectives and adverbs clutter up news stories and should be avoided wherever possible.
This exercise is based on the article The use of adjectives and adverbs in journalism, which we suggest you read before adapting for your own purposes.
Introduction to the use of descriptive language
In journalism, every word must earn its place. While adjectives and adverbs are essential tools in creative writing, they can often undermine the accuracy of a news report if used carelessly.
Over-description can lead to editorialising, where a journalist’s opinion replaces objective facts. This exercise helps you identify “clutter” and ensure that your descriptive choices do not introduce bias or compromise impartiality. By focusing on strong nouns and verbs, you will learn to show the reader what is happening rather than telling them how to feel.
The exercise
Task 1: Identifying adjectives and adverbs
Read the following fictitious news report then identify any adjectives and adverbs that suggest bias, lead the reader to a specific conclusion, or add unnecessary drama that cannot be factually proven.
Disastrous council meeting ends in predictable chaos
By Femi Modi
In a deeply shocking display of sheer incompetence, the embattled City Council met aggressively last night to discuss the extravagant and wildly unpopular new stadium project.
The stubborn Council Leader, Sandra Miller, arrogantly dismissed the heartfelt concerns of vocal local residents. During the heated exchange, Miller coldly claimed that the budget was “under control,” despite the glaringly obvious fact that costs have spiraled out of control.
Opposition member John Draper bravely stood up to deliver a scathing attack on the flawed proposal. He rightly pointed out that the precious greenbelt land would be tragically destroyed by the monstrous concrete structure.
The meeting ended abruptly when Miller cowardly refused to answer tough questions from the exhausted press gallery, leaving the public rightfully furious about this shameful betrayal of trust.
Task 2: Analysis adjectives and adverbs
Adjectives and adverbs are discouraged in journalism because they can blur the facts, add bias, and weaken clear, precise writing. They tell readers what to think or feel instead of showing what actually happened. Journalists are encouraged to use strong verbs and nouns instead, so the information is presented clearly and neutrally, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions.
Using the list of adjectives and adverbs you jotted down in the first task, write down why the words should be avoided. After you have completed your list click on the link below to reveal our suggestions. Don’t click on this link before you have completed task 2.
Click here to see our analysis
Our analysis
In the text above, the adjectives and adverbs do the following:
- Adjectives (e.g., Disastrous, embattled, extravagant, stubborn): These labels pre-judge the subjects. Whether a leader is “stubborn” or “principled” is a matter of opinion, not fact.
- Adverbs (e.g., Arrogantly, coldly, bravely, rightly): These tell the reader how to interpret an action. By saying someone “rightly” pointed something out, the reporter has abandoned neutrality and taken a side
Let’s look more closely at the types of adverbs and adjectives used.
1. The ‘mind-reading’ adverbs
These adverbs claim to know the internal state or intent of the person speaking. They are dangerous because a reporter cannot prove how someone is feeling.
- “Arrogantly dismissed” / “Coldly claimed”: How do we prove “arrogance”? One person’s “arrogance” is another person’s “confidence.” By using these words, the reporter is telling the reader to dislike Miller.
- “Cowardly refused”: This is a heavy value judgment. Refusing to answer questions might be a strategic choice or a matter of timing, not necessarily an act of cowardice.
2. The ‘value-judgment’ adjectives
These words attach a label to a person or thing that is purely a matter of opinion.
- “Embattled” / “Stubborn” Leader: These are loaded labels. “Embattled” suggests she is failing or under attack, while “stubborn” suggests she is wrong to hold her ground.
- “Monstrous” structure: This is an aesthetic opinion. To the architect, the building might be “innovative” or “striking.” To the journalist, it should simply be a “concrete structure.”
3. The ‘editorialising’ adverbs (taking sides)
These are perhaps the most damaging to a news organisation’s reputation for neutrality because they signal that the reporter agrees with one side.
- “Rightly pointed out”: By adding “rightly,” the journalist has stopped reporting the news and started endorsing the opposition.
- “Rightfully furious”: Here, the journalist is giving the public permission to be angry, rather than just reporting that people are protesting.
4. The ‘hyperbolic adjectives
These words add drama (sensationalism) but actually decrease the amount of information provided.
- “Deeply shocking” / “Wildly unpopular”: These are exaggerations. Without a poll or data to back up “wildly unpopular,” the word is a guess.
- “Predictable chaos”: This suggests the reporter has a grudge or a pre-conceived narrative about the council, implying they knew it would go badly before it even started.
Task 3: Rewrite the article
Having read our analysis of what was wrong with the original article, rewrite the story without using the damaging adjectives and adverbs.
After you have written your article click the link below to see our suggested rewrite. Notice how the removal of descriptive words strengthens and shortens the report making it more informative. Please don’t view our version before you have written your own.
Click here to see our suggested story treatment
Stadium budget debated as residents object
Council leader Sandra Miller faced criticisms of the proposed new stadium during a heated meeting of the council last night.
She dismissed claims that the costs were spiralling, saying that the budget was ‘under control”.
Opposition member John Draper said the site for the stadium, on greenbelt land, would be ‘destroyed’ by the development.
The meeting ended following a public participation session. Miller declined to take further questions from reporters at the scene.
Why the second version is better:
- Impartiality: It doesn’t tell the reader that Miller is “arrogant” or Draper is “brave.” It allows the reader to judge their actions based on their quotes and the facts.
- Accuracy: The first article says the public is “rightfully furious.” A journalist cannot prove that every member of the public is furious. The second version focuses on the specific “opposition” that can be verified.
- Tone: The second version avoids “emotionally charged” language, which protects the publication from accusations of bias or defamation.
You might wonder why we left the word “heated” in the revised story. We did so because it is based on the reporter’s first hand observation; it conveys the drama of the meeting.
Task 4: Compare and contrast
Compare what you wrote with what we wrote. Is your report accurate, fair, and impartial? Did you miss any words that damage the report? What have you learnt from this exercise? How will you apply that learning in your work?
Conclusion
Mastering the use of adjectives and adverbs is about exercising restraint. In the fast-paced world of news, clarity is essential. By removing the “clutter” from your writing, you allow the facts to speak more loudly and ensure your work meets the highest standards of professional journalism. Always keep in mind that if a noun or verb is strong enough, it doesn’t need a crutch.
