Let’s talk about ‘unnecessary’ words

An April 25th screenshot from The New York Times shows a teaser with the headline: Follow the Funeral of Pope Francis. Under that are five headshots of people, presumably members of the paper's coverage team. Under the photos, there is this: The New York Times will have more than a dozen reporters and photographers on the ground in Rome covering the funeral of Pope Francis. Join us for live video, updates, images and analysis from St. Peter's Square on Saturday. Under that, in bold type, it says: Here's what to expect." There is an arrow indicating the reader should click there to find out more.

Published August 26, 2025 

Every single day, dating back to the start of my journalism career, I’ve heard about the importance of cutting unnecessary words. Whether my desk was located in Baton Rouge or in the Pacific Northwest, editors stressed trimming word count in order to make stories easier to read.

If you’re not careful, you can let it become its own moral good, one with diminishing returns. What are you sacrificing in order to reduce a 1,500-word article by 30 words? Might be worth it. Might not.

All of this was on my mind in April after Pope Francis died. Taking the concept of unnecessary words to an extreme, I looked at the online front page of The New York Times.

You could easily cut two words from “The funeral of Pope Francis” (Pope Francis’ funeral). What about “more than a dozen reporters and photographers on the ground in Rome”? Also: “Here’s what to expect.”

“Join us for live video, updates, images and analysis from St. Peter’s Square on Saturday” could become “Join us Saturday for live video, updates, images and analysis from St. Peter’s Square.” One could argue that “updates” is unnecessary in that sentence.

An April 26th screenshot shows bullet points with New York Times coverage of the pope's funeral. They include: The funeral homily captures Francis' life and legacy. The funeral music is largely being sung in Gregorian chant. Who is presiding over the funeral? There is a place to click for more updates. These two headlines are at the bottom: Read Pope Francis' Obituary, and See Francis' Last Journey.

Is the word “funeral” needed in front of “homily” and in front of “music” above, or does context tell you they’re from the funeral? “See more updates” could lose a word. If we’re paying by the word and really want to be frugal about it, let’s tighten up two more lines: “Read Pope Francis’ Obituary” and “See Francis’ Last Journey.”

Do you see my point?

The Times may be guilty of trying to make things sound more exciting with “more than a dozen reporters and photographers on the ground in Rome,” but was any reader inconvenienced by those three extra words? Should we launch an investigation into whether some staffers were above the ground, such as on a balcony or riser? Should the note have said “a dozen-plus reporters and photographers,” or “a dozen-plus staffers”?

It can get a little ridiculous. One can turn into too firm a Strunk & White true believer.

What the Times posted was fine. Unless you truly think every single word must matter. If so, yes, it probably needed some cuts and reworking. But come on.

Let’s get snippy

There are unnecessary words everywhere. When do they cross the line into being a problem? That’s up to each writer and editor to decide.

He’s active in both state and local affairs.

As a team, the Cubs hit .242 on the season last year.

He was 3-for-4 on the day.

They didn’t have a single runner on base until the seventh inning.

Full disclosure: I always cut or recast those, but that’s not where I earn my keep. And believe me, I earn my keep and then some.

And I guess I should say this, for the record:

No, not all cutting is bad! It’s often helpful! Often!

Yes, I am the person who loves the phrase “music is the space between the notes,” but I’ve always adored this.

Rare is the Mozart equivalent in journalism — perhaps nonexistent in modern writing — but there’s truth in that second scene from the 1985 movie “Amadeus.”

One of my favorite compliments from readers during my writing career was that I had a conversational style that flowed and was easy to read, even when the desk complained about a story’s length. “It didn’t seem long at all” is always a good sign coming from a subscriber.

And let’s be honest: How many words are, in fact, necessary? How many stories are truly necessary? When cutting becomes its own virtue, I find myself asking these questions.

Finally, the type of writing is a consideration. Sports writing, technical writing, novel writing, arts criticism, comedy writing, hard news — all of these have their own considerations. A good editor knows when to say when.

In the end, you are writing and editing for readers, not for other writers and editors. At least you should be, in my estimation. The alternative all too often ends up getting tangled up in ego and in pursuit of perfection that doesn’t exist, and a pat on the head that will never come.

Thank you

If you appreciate what you find here and feel generous, you can check out the Tip Jar. Thank you for reading. Here’s a butterfly for you.

/”””””\  \  /  /”””””\
\   0   \(  )/   0   /
>       l l       <
/    o   l l   o    \
\,,,,,,,,,/v\,,,,,,,,,/

 

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.