Readers of the Washington Post op-ed page might be forgiven for believing that they’re under assault—from adjectives, lots of adjectives. Consider, for example, these opening sentences from the three separate pieces spread across the top of the page this past Monday.
First comes the redoubtable E.J. Dionne Jr.:
Next in line is Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who declares:
And finally, there’s the Post‘s own Jackson Diehl:
Evidently, word has come down—from the editor? from a writing coach? from Jeff Bezos himself?—that the essential job of the initial paragraph in an op-ed essay is to grab readers’ attention, and the best way to grab readers in a crowded market is to pour on the adjectives: Donald J. Trump’s policies are not just wrong; they’re revealingly, appallingly, catastrophically wrong. And opposition to the president is not just necessary, but widespread, heartfelt, impassioned, and well-received.
As a onetime editorial page editor, at two newspapers, I find this particular stylistic tic to be ill-conceived, overbearing, and counterproductive. Yes, it is important to convey to readers the Washington Post‘s historic, universal, and self-congratulatory commitment to what it perceives to be civic virtue.
But can’t we all agree that, perhaps especially in journalism, understatement is usually more effective than overstatement—particularly when (nearly) all the Post‘s fellow American newspapers share its violent, emotional, and all-too-predictable opinions?
