I note a worrying trend with newspaper journalists over-using adjectives in order to spice up their stories. I know this is not new, but it's becoming far too prevalent for my liking. When I was a young journalist, one of the first things I was taught was to keep your copy sharp and ease back on the adjectives.
In Melbourne's Herald-Sun yesterday, it ran a big article (well, several articles actually) on ex-rugby league hero Andrew Johns' admission that he was a drug and alcohol abuser.
One para reads: 'John's shock admission was an amazing about-face', alluding to the fact the former sports star had come clean and changed his story after being busted for possession of an ecstasy pill while in London.
Why couldn't the journalist simply write:
'Johns' admission was an about-face' - why do we need to know that it was a 'shock' (couldn't we work that out for ourselves?)...and who's to say his about-face was 'amazing'? Too much embellishment, not enough time! (Oh, and the spelling of John's instead of Johns' was another mistake).
