Cut the clutter

Newspaper articles are too long. This is Michael Kinsley’s argument in his article “Cut This Story!” published in the Jan/Feb. edition of The Atlantic. Newspapers should tell a story and cut excessive context information that does not add anything except “unnecessary verbiage.” Kinsley does have a point here. Writing does benefit from cutting out the clutter. Let’s just assume the following passage from “Cut This Story!” were not mere parody:

“People have to look at the sizable gains that have been made since stock and options were granted last year, and the fact is this was, in many ways, a windfall,” said Jesse M. Brill, the chairman of CompensationStandards.com, a trade publication. “This had nothing to do with people’s performance. These were granted at market lows.”
Those are 56 words spent allowing Jesse M. Brill to restate the author’s point. Yet I, for one, have never heard of Jesse M. Brill before. He may be a fine fellow. But I have no particular reason to trust him, and he has no particular reason to need my trust. The New York Times, on the other hand, does need my trust, or it is out of business. So it has a strong incentive to earn my trust every day (which it does, with rare and historic exceptions). But instead of asking me to trust it and its reporter about the thesis of this piece, The New York Times asks me to trust this person I have never heard of, Jesse M. Brill.
Of course this attempt to pass the hot potato to a total stranger doesn’t work, because before I can trust Jesse M. Brill about the thesis of the piece, I have to trust The New York Times that this Jesse M. Brill person is trustworthy, and the article under examination devotes many words to telling me who he is so that I will trust him. (By contrast, it tells me nothing about the reporter.) Why not cut out the middleman? The reason to trust this story, if you choose to do so, is that it is in The New York Times. What Jesse M. Brill may think adds nothing. Yet he is only one of several experts quoted throughout, basically telling the story all over again.

This is too long indeed. The reader has long understood that Mr. Kinsley trusts the NYT but sees no need to trust any unheard-of “expert.” Yet, do we need to know that the author trusts the NYT “with rare and historic exceptions”? Do we really care whether Mr. Brill is “a fine fellow”? Do we need to be told twice (or even trice if we count the phrase “a total stranger”) that Mr. Kinsley does not know Mr. Brill? And does it even make any difference who this stranger is since Mr. Kinsley’s point here is to call into question experts who are simply quoted “to restate the author’s point” and make an article sound more trustworthy? No, and it’s all clutter waiting to be cut:

I have no particular reason to trust Jesse M. Brill. The New York Times, on the other hand, has a strong incentive to earn my trust every day or it is out of business. But instead of asking me to trust it and its reporter, The New York Times asks me to trust Jesse M. Brill.
Of course this attempt to pass the hot potato to a total stranger doesn’t work, because before I can trust Jesse M. Brill’s opinion, I have to trust The New York Times that this Jesse M. Brill person is trustworthy; hence the article devotes 56 words to telling me who he is so that I will trust him. The reason to trust this story, if you choose to do so, is that it is in The New York Times. What Jesse M. Brill may think adds nothing. So, cut him and all the other experts quoted who do nothing but tell the same story all over again and only restate the author’s point.

These 169 words (instead of 250) convey precisely the same message and still allow for playing with the word “trust” if one wishes to do so.
Michael Kinsley ends his article cautioning writers against the “lure of closure – some form of summing-up or leave taking. Often this is a quote that repeats the central point one last time, perhaps combining it with some rueful irony about the limits of human agency.” Good point. Conclusions are for many writers a pain in the back because when they arrive there, they feel they already have said everything they wanted to say. So, how does Michael Kinsley close?

On the first day of my first real job in journalism—on the copy desk at the Royal Oak Daily Tribune in Royal Oak, Michigan—the chief copy editor said, “Remember, every word you cut saves the publisher money.” At the time, saving the publisher money didn’t strike me as the world’s noblest ideal. These days, for anyone in journalism, it’s more compelling.

He closes with a quote by some total stranger, whom I don’t feel any need to trust, and a stuffy reminder how times have changed. Right! Just cut it!


Here are a few tips – without any claim to be complete – how to trim the fat from everyday writing:

Avoid Tautologies

Tautologies are pairs of synonymous words. A moment is brief by nature, and we need just a moment to understand this. The reason that tautologies should be avoided is not because they are redundant. Tautologies simply should be avoided because they are redundant.


Some Adjective/noun combinations are like little roundabouts.


o close proximity
o final completion, final outcome
o free gift
o added bonus
o foreign imports
o frozen ice
o honest truth
o knowledgeable expert
o original source
o usual custom
o advanced planning
o surrounding circumstances
o future plans

Double adjective often belabor the obvious,
o pure unadulterated truth
o frank and honest exchange

and so do some adjective/ adverb or adverb / verb twosomes.
o exactly identical
o entirely eliminate

Double nouns : Never mind, but consensus , e.g., already means being of the same mind
o consensus of opinion
o cash money
o end result
o PIN number (LAN network, estimated ETA, RSVP please)

One conjunctions is plenty.
o and also / and as well
o but however

Tautological pairs just "overexaggerate,"
o each and every
o one and the same
o at about
o full and complete
o few in number
o the reason ... because

and tautological verbs overshoot the mark.
o overexaggerate
o may possibly
o ask the question
o look back in retrospect / refer back
o protrude out
o rise up
o dash quickly
o plan ahead
o circle round
o continue on
o postpone until later
o unite (join, link) together

Avoid empty phrases

• All things considered
• As a matter of fact
• As far as I'm concerned
• because of the fact that
• by means of / by virtue of the fact
• for all intents and purposes
• in a manner of speaking
• In a very real sense
• In the case / in the event
• Something in the nature of
• The point I am trying to make / What I mean to say is that

Avoiding Expletive Constructions
No, expletive constructions are nothing risqué. Expletive constructions are those sentences that begin with there is/are or it is.

There are many tautologies that can make a sentence sound silly. It is these pairs of synonymous words that need to be avoided.
Tautologies, pairs of synonymous words, can make a sentence sound silly and should be avoided.
There is a flock of pigeons that lives in my attic, fluttering around like some obstreperous thoughts in my mind.
The flock of pigeons that lives in my attic flutters around like some obstreperous thoughts in my mind.

Avoid Wordiness

Wordy: The future to come is fully and completely unknown.
Concise: The future is unknown.
Wordy: His discovery was a tremendous breakthrough in the field of economics.
Concise: His discovery was a breakthrough in economics.
Wordy: The politician talked about several of the merits of the new health-care plan.
Concise: The politician praised the health-care plan.

Use the verb instead of a weak noun phrase

Her doll was a lot of comfort to the child when she was afraid at night.
Her doll comforted the child when she was afraid at night.

Jeanny believed but could not confirm that Sam had feelings of affection for her.
Jeanny assumed that Sam liked her.

This dessert has a tendency to collapse when overbaked.
This dessert tends to collapse when overbaked.

I will make a copy of this document.
I will copy this document.