Newspapers teach journalists to write using the inverted pyramid.
It isn’t always the best approach, but it is reliable. the inverted pyramid has worked for news writing since the days reporters telegraphed dispatches to editors. Today it works for online writing.
The structure echoes the classic essay structure you were taught — or should have been taught — at school.
The basic format:
Introduction — say what the piece is about; answer questions like who, what, where and when. You can also explain why at this point, although that can wait until later.
Then — expand, amplify;
Keep doing this until you’ve told the whole story. Make the most important points first then add more and more detail in each additional paragraph.
How did this develop?
Printed newspaper had limited space for news. Traditional newspaper subeditors would cut a story from the bottom if it needs to fill a specific space on a printed page.
The inverted pyramid structure, with each paragraph being progressively less important, means editors remove the least important information first.
A news story written using the inverted pyramid structure can be cut at the end of any paragraph, even the first paragraph, and still be a self-contained story.
Online this means search engines pay more attention to the most important words – which helps people find your writing. Those opening paragraphs also make neat summaries for listings and similar online uses.
The most important information goes in the first paragraph and each extra paragraph carries progressively less weight. That’s where the inverted pyramid name comes from: the foundation sits at the top, the less important details are at the bottom.
If you want to make your writing clearer and more interesting, use ‘be’ verbs sparingly.
The verb to be includes:
Be, being, been, am, is, are, was, were.
Be verbs make text dull partly because of overuse, but also because they remove the reader one step from the action. They take readers the long route to meaning and can be long-winded.
Compare:
Fred is dismissive of cowboy films
with
Fred dismisses cowboy films.
The second phrase has more energy, it propels the reader along. It expresses the same idea in a clearer, more concise way.
Be verbs turn up in passive language, staying away from them helps keep your writing in the active voice.
Old-school newspapers taught journalists to never use be verbs in headlines, but prefer strong action verbs instead. It’s hard to get away with that in today’s online world, so think instead of keeping them to a minimum.
The active voice is usually better than the passive voice because it is direct. This makes it easier to understand and unambiguous.
With the active voice a subject does something to an object: Andy kicked the ball.
In the passive voice the object is acted on by the subject: The ball was kicked by Andy.
An active voice makes for tighter writing and easier reading. It is more personal and less formal.
Efficient writing
The passive sentence used six words while the active sentence needed only four. It has simpler grammar. Active sentences are economic and clear.
Active voice phrases are easier to understand because they involve fewer stages. Think of it as fewer mental hoops to jump through. This becomes important in more complex sentences and longer pieces of text.
While active voice sentences are also easier to write, you might not always find this in practice. The good news is that writing active sentences helps organise your own thoughts. That way you’ll write clearer.
Confident words
Sentences written in the active voice read as if the writer is confident about the facts. In contrast, phrases and sentences written in the passive voice seem tentative or uncertain.
Bureaucrats and corporate managers often like hiding behind the passive voice’s ambiguities. Academics like to use it.
For example, in the phrase; “the claims have been analysed”, it isn’t clear who did the analysis. On the other hand; “We analysed the claims” is definite.
It gets worse when the writer resorts to using the word ‘it’ instead of ‘I’ or ‘we’:
In the sentence “It was decided no claims would be payable” the author is deliberately hiding behind the ‘it’ implying that authority comes from on high and not identifying the person who did the deciding.
There are times when you need to use the passive voice. That’s another post
Concrete nouns keep your writing on track. They are unambiguous and specific.
Use concrete nouns when you need to pin down facts and inform readers.
We describe nouns as concrete when they refer to something you can touch, smell, see, taste or hear. They are all things you sense directly.
Banana, chair, piston engine, trumpet, pterodactyl are all concrete nouns.
I like to think of concrete nouns as crunchy, but they could just as easily be squishy, smelly, loud or colourful.
As opposed to abstract nouns
On the other hand, abstract nouns are things you can’t form a picture of. They are ideas, conditions and qualities, such as courage and happiness.
Many abstract nouns started life as verbs or adverbs, but become abstract nouns with suffixes. So fascinate, becomes fascination, credible becomes credibility and so on.
Yet if you want to report on events or describe something, steer clear of abstract nouns.
Abstract nouns are useful when you want to generalise or when writing about ideas. They can be good for poetry, song lyrics and other flowery types of writing. At the same time they make it hard to figure out exactly what the writer means and are open to misinterpretation.
Concrete nouns keep your writing on track. They are unambiguous and specific.
Use concrete nouns when you need to pin down facts and inform readers.
We describe nouns as concrete when they refer to something you can touch, smell, see, taste or hear. They are all things you sense directly.
Banana, chair, piston engine, trumpet, pterodactyl are all concrete nouns.
I like to think of concrete nouns as crunchy, but they could just as easily be squishy, smelly, loud or colourful.
As opposed to abstract nouns
On the other hand, abstract nouns are things you can’t form a picture of. They are ideas, conditions and qualities, such as courage and happiness.
Many abstract nouns started life as verbs or adverbs, but become abstract nouns with suffixes. So fascinate, becomes fascination, credible becomes credibility and so on.
Yet if you want to report on events or describe something, steer clear of abstract nouns.
Abstract nouns are useful when you want to generalise or when writing about ideas. They can be good for poetry, song lyrics and other flowery types of writing. At the same time they make it hard to figure out exactly what the writer means and are open to misinterpretation.
At school we were taught never to start sentences with “And”.
And yet newspaper journalists do it all the time. Not starting a sentence with “and” is one of the first so-called rules professional writers learn to break.
There’s nothing wrong with using “and” to begin a sentence or a paragraph. It is a great way to smooth the flow when you have a series of short sentences that would otherwise be too staccato for comfortable reading.
Only break this rule in moderation. Overusing “And” at the start of sentences quickly becomes boring.
As Keith Waterhouse points out in Daily Mirror Style, too many sentences starting with the word means your writing reads like the New English Bible.
Aim for only one “And” sentence start in a short piece of 300 words. For longer stories, you can get away with using it a few times – about once every 3-500 words. Control any urge to sprinkle sentences starting with “And” through your copy.
Other conjunctions
The school rule didn’t just apply to “And”, starting sentences with other conjunctions was also forbidden. As an aside, conjunctions are ‘joining’ words used to string phrases together – usually, but not always, to build more complex sentences.
There are plenty of alternative conjunctions to call on at the start of your sentences:
“But” is a great way to start a sentence that disagrees with the previous one.
“Yet” is a less-frequently used alternative.
“Or” is a great word for helping text flow.
Some people don’t like sentences to start with “However”. That’s another rule worth breaking.
“Although” is a possibility. In practice, it can be better to shorten the word to “Though” at the start of a sentence.
The term “content” is a barbarism that bit by bit devalues what journalists do.
Jay Rosen, Chair of Journalism at New York University
Second, people read online material about 25 per cent slower than print. Jakob Nielsen explains why in In defence of print. Nielsen wrote his article in 1996, but things haven’t changed.
Countering distraction
Third, people get distracted easily online. There are advertisements and links to other websites as well as bleeping notification of incoming emails, tweets and instant messages.
If you write a brief article, there is more chance a reader will get to the end before skipping off elsewhere.
Brevity is the key
Fourth, skilled writers aim for brevity because good, vigorous English is concise.
A writer’s goal is to get messages to readers as swiftly and as accurately as possible.
Get on. Say what you need to say. Get off.
Leave the fancy, flowery stuff to poets and fiction writers.
Short – cram the maximum amount of meaning into the minimum number of words. There’s no strict guide to ideal word length, but search engines only care about the first 64 characters. Make every word count.
Clear – good headline are unambiguous. They must be immediately understandable in any context. Not everyone reading your writing will be a native English speaker. Keep this in mind.
Straightforward – use mainly nouns and verbs. Remember your nouns will be keywords for people using search engines.
Use simple words – short, Anglo Saxon words are best. Everyone knows exactly what they mean and they help you cram more meaning into fewer characters.
Active – use the active voice.
Avoid – forms of the verb to be. Articles ‘a’, ‘an’ and ‘the’ are space wasters best left out of headlines. Use a comma rather than the word ‘and’. Try not to use pronouns.
Plain English – there’s a grab-bag of short clichéd headline words that people never use in real life – such as nix, slam, rap. It’s better to stick with everyday language.
Some experts will tell you lists, questions and commands work well in online headlines. All may be worth trying, it depends what you are aiming for. Either way, they’ll work better if you keep my earlier points in mind.
As old school journalists, we were taught to write mainly with nouns and verbs. Editors let us use adjectives only if they make the meaning more precise.
And even then, subeditors would remove them as they tightened copy.
In Daily Mirror Style Keith Waterhouse describes the old school journalist’s view. He says:
Adjectives should not be allowed in newspapers unless they have something to say.
Writers think adjectives add colour to their words. They do. But colourful writing isn’t always easier to understand.
In volume one of Editing and Writing, another newspaper journalist Harold Evans says they give writing a “superficial glitter”.
He goes on to say:
Every adjective should be examined to see: is it needed to define the subject or is it there for emphasis?
Evans says “over-emphasis destroys credibility”.
Adjectives for emphasis
Take care when using adjectives for emphasis. For example, the word ‘very’ adds nothing to a phrase. Most of the time you can lose the word without changing any meaning.
The same usually applies to words like really, actually, rather and quite.
It also applies to the f-word. It may be fashionable to use it in today’s writing, but nine times out of ten all it does is function as a synonym for ‘very’.
Often there’s a better, more elegant way of expressing the same idea. “The train crawled into the station” is better than saying it was “very slow”.
In practice many adjectives have no substance. You can remove most from your sentences. You won’t lose much, but you will gain clarity.
On a personal note, publishers and others have paid me for years to write by the word. Loading my copy with lucrative filler words including adjectives makes economic sense. Over the years they have paid off my mortgage.
Yet my writing would certainly better without them.
A quick refresher:
Nouns are names of people, places, things and ideas.
Verbs are doing words. They tell you what is going on.
We say Adjectives modify nouns. They tell you what kind it is, how many there are and which one is being talked about.
“Whenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it — whole-heartedly — and delete it before sending your manuscript to press: Murder your darlings.”
Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch
This quote, or a version of it, has been attributed to many writers Quiller-Couch was the original source. It’s unlikely you’ve ever heard of him, so this Wikipedia page will help.
The key point here is that often when you think you’ve written something brilliant, you probably haven’t. This is something older journalists would knock out of juniors during training. These days the young ones don’t have time for fancy writing.
Using a word like Murder is a great way of making the message memorable.
Exclamation marks, some people call them bangs, have almost no place in serious writing.
Tabloids use them in headlines. You may use exclamation marks in reported speech or where they form part of a name or title.
And that’s it.
It’s no accident many newspapers and publishing companies ban exclamation marks.
They don’t add drama.
They don’t improve poor writing.
Like laughing at your own jokes
Exclamation marks don’t tell readers a sentence was funny.
They may tell readers a sentence was supposed to be funny. That’s quite different.
In the newspaper business, the exclamation mark is sometimes known as a shriek or screamer. These names give a clue to why they best left on the shelf.
It is often used to add emphasis to sentences. It’s versatile, you’ll see it used to show surprise, anger or joy.
You’ll see it used far too often.
Fake hysteria
The exclamation mark is the punctuation equivalent of raising your voice – maybe hysterically. Hence the name ‘shriek’.
Here’s why you should avoid them:
They distract readers. Not in a good way.
They are an excuse for lazy writing – funny or dramatic writing doesn’t need propping up.
Once people start using exclamation marks, they usually overuse them – which makes writing look amateur.
They hint at a gushing bygone world of “what-ho Jeeves!”, “lashings of ginger beer!” and “golly gosh!”. - Your readers will wonder if they’ve stepped into a time warp.
They make your writing seem inauthentic.
As an editor, I told a young reporter working for me who used one in a story that was his year’s allocation gone.
I was only half-joking. If you must use exclamation marks, use them rarely. Once a year is too often.
The reporter got the message. I never saw another one in his copy.
Orwell on language
Everyone who thinks at all has noticed that our language is practically useless for describing anything that goes on inside the brain.
– George Orwell
David Ogilvy: How to write
“Never use jargon words like reconceptualize, demassification, attitudinally, judgmentally. They are hallmarks of a pretentious ass.”
From a memo advertising man David Ogilvy sent to employees at his agency in 1982, titled: “How to Write”.
The verb of attribution
Earlier I wrote that most of the time you should use said when reporting someone’s words. Said is the best verb of attribution.
Said is a wise choice of word for journalists. It is neutral and judgement free. This makes it a safe and accurate choice.
A simple word like said is readily understood and unambiguous — that’s always a sign of good writing.
You might choose something else if you’re writing poetry, literature or fiction. Yet for everyday writing use the simplest option. Your readers will thank you.
The boring trap
Don’t let anyone tell you that sticking with said makes your writing boring. Nor should you listen to those who tell you the word is overused.
It is less boring than sitting through a defamation action because someone misinterpreted an alternative word.
It is less boring than expecting your reader to look up the meaning of an alternative word.
Readers can misunderstand almost every alternative to said.
This is just between us
The term ‘verb of attribution’ is correct. Yet, outside of academic discussions about language, it is not the best phrase to use in your writing.
‘Verb of attribution’ is the kind of formal, technical language that puts readers off, even when they know what it means.
First, second, third
Remember when list posts were all the rage?
There’s nothing wrong with writing lists – especially when publishing online – so long as you don’t overdo it.
When the list items are short, you can use bullet points. Or, if the order is important, choose numbered bullets.
Both options make text easy to scan and read quickly.
Another, more elegant, approach is to write out your list using a variation on the following theme:
First, something happened. Second, something else. Next, we used a little elegant variation to make things more interesting. Then, we did this. Last, we finished up.
Use sparingly
Ideally a list written this way should have only a few points. Keep it to four or five at most. Six is pushing it. Seven is far too many.
When writing numbers this way you should spell out the words from first to ninth1 then write 10th, 15th, hundredth. You should never get as far as ninth.
Some people use firstly, secondly, thirdly and so on. While strictly speaking both approaches are grammatically correct, adding -ly is old-fashioned and unnecessarily fussy.
What’s more, you’ll end up looking silly if you want to deal with lots of items and reach eleventhly or even millionthly.
So, stick with the simpler format.
or perhaps tenth. This depends on your taste or if you have one, your house style guide, but remember to stay consistent. ↩︎
When reporting someone’s words, it’s best to use said in most cases.
Newspaper and other style guides disagree over whether to use past tense (said) or present tense (says).
It doesn’t matter which. Pick one and stick with it. At times you may need to write someone says this now, but said something different in the past.
While you can use said even with written words - if you are quoting what someone wrote in a mail or in tweet - it is better to make it clear the person wasn’t talking at the time.
Alternative verbs are mainly pompous or value-laden. I once worked with a journalist who sprinkled his copy with words like averred or commented because he thought said was too dull.
Neither word adds useful information. The pompous language may frighten off some readers. To me it read like something from Edwardian times.
##Not using said sows seeds of doubt
Your readers may interpret any alternative to said as suggesting the speaker is lying, misinformed or doesn’t know what they are talking about. Think of claimed or according to.
It is perfectly OK to used claimed or according to when you want readers to understand there may be some doubt.
One alternative I allow myself is the verb ask. This only works when someone is clearly asking a question.
##How about when writing fiction?
Fiction writer Elemore Leonard has another perspective on this. In his excellent Ten rules of writing he said:
Never use a verb other than “said” to carry dialogue.
The line of dialogue belongs to the character; the verb is the writer sticking his nose in. But said is far less intrusive than grumbled, gasped, cautioned, lied. I once noticed Mary McCarthy ending a line of dialogue with “she asseverated,” and had to stop reading to get the dictionary.
Leonard wrote fast-paced fiction with terrific dialogue, if sticking with the one word was good enough for him, it is good enough for the rest of us.
Sharp-eyed readers will have noticed I wrote: Elmore Leonard said not says. The writer died in 2013, that’s definitely past-tense.
Writing for newspapers and magazines has been my main job for almost 40 years.
For most of the past decade, I’ve worked seven days a week, 50 weeks of the year. Earlier in my life I had regular jobs which had paid holiday and I didn’t always need to work through the weekend. But still long hours.
I estimate that over the long haul I’ve written an average of 5,000 words a week. That’s around 250,000 a year. Over 40 years it adds up to 10 million words give or take.