Robbery: You Usually Don't Need "That"

Every writing instructor has some sort of pet peeve. And that peeve isn't regarding something that is absolutely wrong, but something that is unneeded and intensely disliked by the individual.

This is the story of one such peeve.

In writing, "that" is one of the most wasteful words you can use. Quite often, you could remove it entirely and lose nothing in a sentence.

Like here:

He said that the man entered the store around 11 p.m.

Let's take "that" out and see what we have left:

He said the man entered the store around 11 p.m.

Any difference? Well, it's a word shorter. And that's it.

Controversial: Shortening A Long Lede

Here was one of the too-long ledes: 


The decision was unanimous when the East Lansing  School Board voted to ban boys from playing on girls' team Tuesday night. The policy will ban boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams. It takes effect immediately.

Why was it too long? It crammed too much info into the lede. But let's look at the layers of info: the first sentence gets to the main point: The decision was unanimous when the East Lansing  School Board voted to ban boys from playing on girls' team Tuesday night. It's the bare minimum a reader needs to know how things ended up.


Then, the second and third sentences elaborate on the main point by offering greater detail to the general bottom line, answering questions created by the main point like,how broad is the ban? When does it start? and better supporting the lede: The policy will ban boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams. It takes effect immediately.

In short, the second and third sentences do what a nut graf is supposed to do. So, why not split the graf up by turning the first sentence into a lede, and the second and third sentences into a nut graf, like this:

The decision was unanimous when the East Lansing  School Board voted to ban boys from playing on girls' team Tuesday night.

The policy will ban boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams. It takes effect immediately. 

Now, I'm not saying the answer to shortening a lede is always to split it in half. But you should look at what parts of a long lede do what a lede should, and if any other parts of a lede are better served as nut graf fodder.

With our newly-shortened lede, we can shorten it even further. Here's what we have now:

The decision was unanimous when the East Lansing  School Board voted to ban boys from playing on girls' team Tuesday night.

With any lede, we should look for echoes, where we repeat information. Here, we do that when we refer to the vote twice, once as a "decision" and again as "voted."  Let's rearrange word order to try to combine those refereces. What we have left is this:

The East Lansing School Board unanimously voted to ban boys from playing on girls' teams Tuesday night.

Now, we went from 21 words to 17 words, with no loss in meaning. Be sure to play with word order to shorten your work.

Controversial: Be Efficient With Word Use

It's important that you look for unnecessary words and strip those out of your work. Like in this lede:

The East Lansing School Board has made a decision to implement a ban to no longer allow boys from competing in girls' sports.

It's a good lede, but wordy. First, do you need to say has made a decision to when just saying decided would suffice? 

Second, isn't saying implement a ban and no longer allow the same thing? I'd get rid of one of those, or even both. After all, doesn't ban say all that in just one word? What we have left is this:

The East Lansing School Board decided to ban boys from competing in girls' sports.

Is there any difference in meaning or context or detail than the first lede? I'd say not. It's just a lot shorter and less wordy.

Controversial: Don't Be Redundant

Do you need to say unanimous 9-0 vote?

No. 9-0 is unanimous. Saying both is simply repeating the obvious. You can just call it a 9-0 vote.

Be concise. Don't be wordy. And don't repeat the same thing in a different way.

More Ledes: Consider Inclusive Words

Many of you in the animals lede referred to ecologists and biologists. A couple of you simply referred to scientists.

And why not? Ecologists and biologists are scientists. It's simpler and doesn't result in any lost meaning to your readers.

If you have the opportunity to group specifics under a single umbrella term, consider that course of action.

RFTM Chapter 4: The Language Of News

Be precise. Understand the words you use, and use words that are clear, concise and accurate. Journalists who do not use words correctly can confuse or irritate their readers. That undermines credibility and questions accuracy. (After all, if you can't get the small things right -- like proper word use -- how can you get the big things right, and why should a reader trust you?) .

Journalists who do not use words correctly can convey a meaning that was not intended. (Here's a real example from my professional career that ended up on the Jay Leno show: I wrote a short story about a man who was arrested, and when he was strip-searched in jail they found he was hiding crack cocaine between his butt cheeks. And here was the headline an editor wrote: MAN HID CRACK IN BUTTOCKS. Hardy har har.)

Use strong verbs. What is a strong verb? A verb that describes the action taking place, in an active tense. (For example, on 9/11 it would be underwhelming to say planes "hit" the Twin Towers. It would be more accurate and contextual to say the planed "slammed" into the buildings.)

(Let me be clear: the verb still has to be accurate, and not an exaggeration. Don't hype up a story without reason; our reason comes from facts. Like in the 9/11 example; the planes didn't just pop into the Twin Towers. They were tons of steel and human life racing at almost 500 mph. striking with such power that the buildings buckled, and eventually fell. The facts cry out for context and to the severity of what happened. It has nothing to do with how I want to write it.)

Avoid adjectives and adverbs. Most are unnecessary, and simply restate the obvious. And it may inject opinion into the story. There's no need to say something horrible is "grim" or "tragic;" the presentation of facts will make that clear.

Avoid cliches, which are words and phrases that have been used over and over again, like someone being "as blind as a bat" or "old as dirt." It's just lazy writing; come up with something descriptive and original instead.

Avoid slang. It can become dated; it can convey alternative meanings; it can confuse readers of certain ages of ethic groups. (For example, if you told your grandma "Whatevs, obvi," would she know what the hell you were talking about? And that's a great test; if your grandma wouldn't understand your word use, then use simpler and clearer language.)

Avoid or translate technical language and jargon. Journalists should translate jargon into plain English. (e.g., instead of "cardiac arrest," say "heart attack.") If you don't know what a layman's term may be for a given word or phrase, ask your source for a translation in plain English or check resources online that could do the same.

Avoid using vague expressions known as euphemisms in place of harsher but more direct terms. (For example, "expecting" is a euphemism for "pregnant." "Downsizing" is a euphemism for "laid off" or "fired." "Passed away" is a euphemism for "dying." Don't use such euphemisms.) Euphemisms detract from clarity and precision in writing.

Don't use first-person references outside of quotes, like I, me, my, our, ect.  Those betray a reporter's neutral bystander role.

Avoid the negative. I don't mean bad news; I mean negative sentence construction, like "the dog did not stay awake," instead of the better "the dog slept." Sentences with multiple negatives can become tough to understand (e.g., "the dog did not stay awake while his owner was not home" can be simplified to, "The dog slept while his owner was away.")

Avoid an echo. An echo is a redundant word. (For example, "frozen tundra" includes an echo, because the definition of "tundra" is frozen ground. So, when you say "frozen tundra," you're saying "frozen frozen ground.") 

Avoid gush. This is writing with exaggerated enthusiasm. ("The 5th Annual Spelling Bee was an awesome mega-event that will never be forgotten!") Use facts to substantiate your descriptions. If the spelling bee included the largest fireworks show in history and multiple people are quoted as saying that this was the peak of their lives, then the aforementioned lede may be okay. If your facts don't support it, then it's not. Find words and phrases that accurately set the scene.)

Controversial: Some Ways To Shorten A Long Lede

Here was one of the too-long ledes:


The decision was unanimous when the East Lansing  School Board voted to ban boys from playing on girls' team Wednesday night. The policy will ban boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams. It takes effect immediately.

Why was it too long? It crammed too much info into the lede. But let's look at the layers of info: the first sentence gets to the main point: The decision was unanimous when the East Lansing  School Board voted to ban boys from playing on girls' team Wednesday night. It's the bare minimum a reader needs to know how things ended up.


Then, the second and third sentences elaborate on the main point by offering greater detail to the general bottom line, answering questions created by the main point like, how broad is the ban? When does it start? and better supporting the lede: The policy will ban boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams. It takes effect immediately.

In short, the second and third sentences do what a nut graf is supposed to do. So, why not split the graf up by turning the first sentence into a lede, and the second and third sentences into a nut graf, like this:

The decision was unanimous when the East Lansing  School Board voted to ban boys from playing on girls' team Wednessday night.

The policy will ban boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams. It takes effect immediately. 

Now, I'm not saying the answer to shortening a lede is always to split it in half. But you should look at what parts of a long lede do what a lede should, and if any other parts of a lede are better served as nut graf fodder.

With our newly-shortened lede, we can shorten it even further. Here's what we have now:

The decision was unanimous when the East Lansing  School Board voted to ban boys from playing on girls' team Wednessday night.

With any lede, we should look for echoes, where we repeat information. Here, we do that when we refer to the vote twice, once as a "decision" and again as "voted."  Let's rearrange word order to try to combine those refereces. What we have left is this:

The East Lansing School Board unanimously voted to ban boys from playing on girls' teams Wednesday night.

Now, we went from 21 words to 17 words, with no loss in meaning. Be sure to play with word order to shorten your work.

Controversial: Be Efficient With Word Use

It's important that you look for unnecessary words and strip those out of your work. Like in this lede:

The East Lansing School Board has made a decision on Tuesday to implement a ban to no longer allow boys from competing in girls' sports.

It's a good lede, but wordy. First, do you need to say has made a decision to when just saying decided would suffice?

Second, isn't saying implement a ban and no longer allow the same thing? I'd get rid of one of those, or even both. After all, doesn't ban say all that in just one word? What we have left is this:

The East Lansing School Board decided Tuesday to ban boys from competing in girls' sports.

Is there any difference in meaning or context or detail than the first lede? I'd say not. It's just a lot shorter and less wordy.

Controversial: Don't Be Redundant

Do you need to say unanimous 9-0 vote?

No. 9-0 is unanimous. Saying both is simply repeating the obvious. You can just call it a 9-0 vote.

Be concise. Don't be wordy. And don't repeat the same thing in a different way.

More Ledes: Look For Inclusive Words

Many of you in the animals lede referred to "ecologists and biologists." A couple of you simply referred to "scientists."

And why not? Ecologists and biologists are scientists. It's simpler and doesn't result in any lost meaning to your readers.

If you have the opportunity to group specifics under a single umbrella term, consider that course of action.

First Ledes: Use The Right Words!

Let's look at this lede:

      The Centers of Disease Control concluded from a study that the length of an average American wedding is dependent on factors other than just people growing apart after time.

We have a problems here: we listed the name of the organization as the Center of Disease Control. That is not the name; according to what we were given, it is the Centers (not Center) for (not of) Disease Control.

In journalism, we must get names precisely correct. No wiggle room. As noted in the syllabus:

Fact errors: Inaccurate information, misspelling a proper name, a misquotation or an error that changes the meaning of a story automatically drops a grade to a maximum of 1.0 (e.g., President “Barack Obamma” or “Department of Transport”).      

So, this is the first "fatal" of the semester. I'm not pointing this out to be a jerk; rather, it's to remind each and every one of us that journalism isn't about writing; it's about getting it right. That means we need to use names and facts precisely. That means we have to be sure to double-check our work to ensure that we used the right terms and facts, the right way.

In this assignment, each component was its own grade. So, instead of dropping the overall grade to a 1.0, it dropped it to a 3.0, with three components getting full credit. 

It wasn't our only fatal. In another exercise, we reported the fire department's pole-sliding was a centuries-old tradition (plural), when in fact it was a century-old tradition (singular). Yes, it changes the meaning from one hundred years to hundreds of years, so it is a fatal.

In an earlier blog post, we talked about using precise language, and using language correctly. This is an example of why; so we can convey the correct meaning, exactly as we intended and without risk of confusion.

A bigger problem we had was that one of us didn't do this assignment. The fastest way to struggle in this class is to miss assignments, since the final grade is based on a compilation of scores. And a low score is better than no score at all.

First Ledes: Two Sentences Are NOT Better Than One

In writing for journalism, we need to look for spots where we can reduce wordiness and be efficient in word use.

I see an opportunity with this lede:

Teachers in East Lansing will be provided with financial relief, thanks to a new program. The program will offer mortgages with below-market interest rates to teachers and administrators in public schools. 

First, we should always be on the lookout for opportunities to reduce a two-sentence lede to just one sentence. A good indication of whether you can possibly do that is if you refer to something twice.

Like, when you refer to the "program" at the end of the first sentence, and the start of the second sentence. Why not merge those references -- and sentences -- like this:

Teachers in East Lansing will be provided with financial relief, thanks to a new program offering mortgages with below-market interest rates to teachers and administrators in public schools.

See what I did there? We've cut out excessive wordiness and redundancy.

RFTM Chapter 3: Newswriting Style

What do newswriters do? Provide information in a clear and concise manner using simple language. Simple language is important because you are trying to reach an audience with widely varied capabilities and interests. To communicate effectively to a mass audience, you must present information in a way that will allow almost everyone to read and understand it.

(This is the exact opposite of what you've learned in English composition all these years, where teachers encourage you to use big and fancy words. For practical writing, this is an awful habit, as is much we're going to un-learn you from English comp this term. Use simple words and simple terms, please.)

Also, present factual information succinctly and in an impartial and objective manner. You must provide enough information so that the audience understands what happened, and keep your opinion out of stories.

(Again, a big diff between English comp and journalism is that in English comp, we write to express ourselves. In journalism, we write to share facts we've verified. Writing isn't about our self-expression; it's about informing an audience first and foremost.)

The pre-writing process. Ask yourself these questions: what is the story about? Why is it newsworthy? How is its central point unique? Failure to identify a central point risks a story that is incoherent and incomplete. Try to develop one central point thoroughly. A story with several apparent central points may be worth more than one story.

How do you find a central point? Report! What we write and how we write it isn't based on personal expression and opinion; it's based on what we discover in the reporting process, and what we determine is most interesting, relevant and useful to our audience.

The story outline. We start with the lede paragraph. That's the first paragraph of a story, which may contain the central point or a telling anecdote that sets up the central point. Often, the lede goes to end result and ultimate outcome; e.g., how the story ended and what is the latest information.

(Again, this is another big way journalism differs from English comp. In English comp, the ending is the ending. But in journalism, the ending is the lede: who won the football game, what the city council ended up doing, how many people died in the tornado outbreak, ect.)

Use simplifying words, sentences and paragraphs. Avoid long, unfamiliar words (e.g., instead of "homicide," say "murder. Instead of "vehicle," say "car" or "van" or "bus" or whatever. Instead of "inebriated vehicle operator," say "drunk driver.")

Use short sentences and paragraphs. The longer a sentence is, the more difficult it is to understand. You can shorten sentences by using the "normal word order" of subject, then verb, then direct object (e.g., instead of saying "The homework was eaten by the dog," say "The dog ate the homework.")

Write for the ear. Use sentences that do not sound awkward or inappropriate when spoken. (If you're not sure if a sentence flows well, read it out loud. Does it sound choppy or stilted or a hot mess? Then it probably reads the same way. Rewrite it as necessary until it's easy to say and hear out loud.)

Eliminate unnecessary words. Writers who use two words when one would suffice simply waste space. (Again, in English comp you are encouraged to be wordy; in journalism, we want to be efficient with our word use.) Eliminate multiple words that convey the same idea (e.g., "past history." History is the past. Eliminate one of those words.)

Remain objective. Reporters are neutral observers, not advocates or participants. Reporters provide facts and details, not opinion. (Again, journalism isn't about you expressing yourself; it's about informing the audience on what you discovered during the reporting process.)

Avoid stereotypical isms. Like, racism. (Only mention race when clearly relevant to a story, like a detailed suspect description.) Or, sexism. (Avoid occupational terms that exclude one sex or the other, like "fireman." Use "firefighter" instead.) Or ageism and word usage with the disabled, veterans and religious groups, and the poor. ("Old fogey, Bible-beater, bum," ect.)

RFTM Chapter 4: The Language Of News

Be precise. Understand the words you use, and use words that are clear, concise and accurate. Journalists who do not use words correctly can confuse or irritate their readers. That undermines credibility and questions accuracy. (After all, if you can't get the small things right -- like proper word use -- how can you get the big things right, and why should a reader trust you?) .

Journalists who do not use words correctly can convey a meaning that was not intended. (Here's a real example from my professional career that ended up on the Jay Leno show: I wrote a short story about a man who was arrested, and when he was strip-searched in jail they found he was hiding crack cocaine between his butt cheeks. And here was the headline an editor wrote: MAN HID CRACK IN BUTTOCKS. Hardy har har.)

Use strong verbs. What is a strong verb? A verb that describes the action taking place, in an active tense. (For example, on 9/11 it would be underwhelming to say planes "hit" the Twin Towers. It would be more accurate and contextual to say the planed "slammed" into the buildings.)

(Let me be clear: the verb still has to be accurate, and not an exaggeration. Don't hype up a story without reason; our reason comes from facts. Like in the 9/11 example; the planes didn't just pop into the Twin Towers. They were tons of steel and human life racing at almost 500 mph. striking with such power that the buildings buckled, and eventually fell. The facts cry out for context and to the severity of what happened. It has nothing to do with how I want to write it.)

Avoid adjectives and adverbs. Most are unnecessary, and simply restate the obvious. And it may inject opinion into the story. There's no need to say something horrible is "grim" or "tragic;" the presentation of facts will make that clear.

Avoid cliches, which are words and phrases that have been used over and over again, like someone being "as blind as a bat" or "old as dirt." It's just lazy writing; come up with something descriptive and original instead.

Avoid slang. It can become dated; it can convey alternative meanings; it can confuse readers of certain ages of ethic groups. (For example, if you told your grandma "Whatevs, obvi," would she know what the hell you were talking about? And that's a great test; if your grandma wouldn't understand your word use, then use simpler and clearer language.)

Avoid or translate technical language and jargon. Journalists should translate jargon into plain English. (e.g., instead of "cardiac arrest," say "heart attack.") If you don't know what a layman's term may be for a given word or phrase, ask your source for a translation in plain English or check resources online that could do the same.

Avoid using vague expressions known as euphemisms in place of harsher but more direct terms. (For example, "expecting" is a euphemism for "pregnant." "Downsizing" is a euphemism for "laid off" or "fired." "Passed away" is a euphemism for "dying." Don't use such euphemisms.) Euphemisms detract from clarity and precision in writing.

Don't use first-person references outside of quotes, like I, me, my, our, ect.  Those betray a reporter's neutral bystander role.

Avoid the negative. I don't mean bad news; I mean negative sentence construction, like "the dog did not stay awake," instead of the better "the dog slept." Sentences with multiple negatives can become tough to understand (e.g., "the dog did not stay awake while his owner was not home" can be simplified to, "The dog slept while his owner was away.")

Avoid an echo. An echo is a redundant word. (For example, "frozen tundra" includes an echo, because the definition of "tundra" is frozen ground. So, when you say "frozen tundra," you're saying "frozen frozen ground.")

Avoid gush. This is writing with exaggerated enthusiasm. ("The 5th Annual Spelling Bee was an awesome mega-event that will never be forgotten!") Use facts to substantiate your descriptions. If the spelling bee included the largest fireworks show in history and multiple people are quoted as saying that this was the peak of their lives, then the aforementioned lede may be okay. If your facts don't support it, then it's not. Find words and phrases that accurately set the scene.)

Robbery: You Usually Don't Need "That"

Every writing instructor has some sort of pet peeve. And that peeve isn't regarding something that is absolutely wrong, but something that is unneeded and intensely disliked by the individual.

This is the story of one such peeve.

In writing, "that" is one of the most wasteful words you can use. Quite often, you could remove it entirely and lose nothing in a sentence.

Like here:

He said that the man entered the store around 11 p.m.

Let's take "that" out and see what we have left:

He said the man entered the store around 11 p.m.

Any difference? Well, it's a word shorter. And that's it.

Controversial: Shortening A Long Lede

Here was one of the too-long ledes:


The decision was unanimous when the East Lansing  School Board voted to ban boys from playing on girls' team Tuesday night. The policy will ban boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams. It takes effect immediately.

Why was it too long? It crammed too much info into the lede. But let's look at the layers of info: the first sentence gets to the main point: The decision was unanimous when the East Lansing  School Board voted to ban boys from playing on girls' team Tuesday night. It's the bare minimum a reader needs to know how things ended up.


Then, the second and third sentences elaborate on the main point by offering greater detail to the general bottom line, answering questions created by the main point like, how broad is the ban? When does it start? and better supporting the lede: The policy will ban boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams. It takes effect immediately.

In short, the second and third sentences do what a nut graf is supposed to do. So, why not split the graf up by turning the first sentence into a lede, and the second and third sentences into a nut graf, like this:

The decision was unanimous when the East Lansing  School Board voted to ban boys from playing on girls' team Tuesday night.

The policy will ban boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams. It takes effect immediately. 

Now, I'm not saying the answer to shortening a lede is always to split it in half. But you should look at what parts of a long lede do what a lede should, and if any other parts of a lede are better served as nut graf fodder.

With our newly-shortened lede, we can shorten it even further. Here's what we have now:

The decision was unanimous when the East Lansing  School Board voted to ban boys from playing on girls' team Tuesday night.

With any lede, we should look for echoes, where we repeat information. Here, we do that when we refer to the vote twice, once as a "decision" and again as "voted."  Let's rearrange word order to try to combine those refereces. What we have left is this:

The East Lansing School Board unanimously voted to ban boys from playing on girls' teams Tuesday night.

Now, we went from 21 words to 17 words, with no loss in meaning. Be sure to play with word order to shorten your work.

Controversial: Be Efficient With Word Use

It's important that you look for unnecessary words and strip those out of your work. Like in this lede:

The East Lansing School Board has made a decision to implement a ban to no longer allow boys from competing in girls' sports.

It's a good lede, but wordy. First, do you need to say has made a decision to when just saying decided would suffice?

Second, isn't saying implement a ban and no longer allow the same thing? I'd get rid of one of those, or even both. After all, doesn't ban say all that in just one word? What we have left is this:

The East Lansing School Board decided to ban boys from competing in girls' sports.

Is there any difference in meaning or context or detail than the first lede? I'd say not. It's just a lot shorter and less wordy.

Controversial: Don't Be Redundant

Do you need to say unanimous 9-0 vote?

No. 9-0 is unanimous. Saying both is simply repeating the obvious. You can just call it a 9-0 vote.

Be concise. Don't be wordy. And don't repeat the same thing in a different way.

More Ledes: Consider Inclusive Words

Many of you in the animals lede referred to ecologists and biologists. A couple of you simply referred to scientists.

And why not? Ecologists and biologists are scientists. It's simpler and doesn't result in any lost meaning to your readers.

If you have the opportunity to group specifics under a single umbrella term, consider that course of action.

RFTM Chapter 4: The Language Of News

Be precise. Understand the words you use, and use words that are clear, concise and accurate. Journalists who do not use words correctly can confuse or irritate their readers. That undermines credibility and questions accuracy. (After all, if you can't get the small things right -- like proper word use -- how can you get the big things right, and why should a reader trust you?) .

Journalists who do not use words correctly can convey a meaning that was not intended. (Here's a real example from my professional career that ended up on the Jay Leno show: I wrote a short story about a man who was arrested, and when he was strip-searched in jail they found he was hiding crack cocaine between his butt cheeks. And here was the headline an editor wrote: MAN HID CRACK IN BUTTOCKS. Hardy har har.)

Use strong verbs. What is a strong verb? A verb that describes the action taking place, in an active tense. (For example, on 9/11 it would be underwhelming to say planes "hit" the Twin Towers. It would be more accurate and contextual to say the planed "slammed" into the buildings.)

(Let me be clear: the verb still has to be accurate, and not an exaggeration. Don't hype up a story without reason; our reason comes from facts. Like in the 9/11 example; the planes didn't just pop into the Twin Towers. They were tons of steel and human life racing at almost 500 mph. striking with such power that the buildings buckled, and eventually fell. The facts cry out for context and to the severity of what happened. It has nothing to do with how I want to write it.)

Avoid adjectives and adverbs. Most are unnecessary, and simply restate the obvious. And it may inject opinion into the story. There's no need to say something horrible is "grim" or "tragic;" the presentation of facts will make that clear.

Avoid cliches, which are words and phrases that have been used over and over again, like someone being "as blind as a bat" or "old as dirt." It's just lazy writing; come up with something descriptive and original instead.

Avoid slang. It can become dated; it can convey alternative meanings; it can confuse readers of certain ages of ethic groups. (For example, if you told your grandma "Whatevs, obvi," would she know what the hell you were talking about? And that's a great test; if your grandma wouldn't understand your word use, then use simpler and clearer language.)

Avoid or translate technical language and jargon. Journalists should translate jargon into plain English. (e.g., instead of "cardiac arrest," say "heart attack.") If you don't know what a layman's term may be for a given word or phrase, ask your source for a translation in plain English or check resources online that could do the same.

Avoid using vague expressions known as euphemisms in place of harsher but more direct terms. (For example, "expecting" is a euphemism for "pregnant." "Downsizing" is a euphemism for "laid off" or "fired." "Passed away" is a euphemism for "dying." Don't use such euphemisms.) Euphemisms detract from clarity and precision in writing.

Don't use first-person references outside of quotes, like I, me, my, our, ect.  Those betray a reporter's neutral bystander role.

Avoid the negative. I don't mean bad news; I mean negative sentence construction, like "the dog did not stay awake," instead of the better "the dog slept." Sentences with multiple negatives can become tough to understand (e.g., "the dog did not stay awake while his owner was not home" can be simplified to, "The dog slept while his owner was away.")

Avoid an echo. An echo is a redundant word. (For example, "frozen tundra" includes an echo, because the definition of "tundra" is frozen ground. So, when you say "frozen tundra," you're saying "frozen frozen ground.")

Avoid gush. This is writing with exaggerated enthusiasm. ("The 5th Annual Spelling Bee was an awesome mega-event that will never be forgotten!") Use facts to substantiate your descriptions. If the spelling bee included the largest fireworks show in history and multiple people are quoted as saying that this was the peak of their lives, then the aforementioned lede may be okay. If your facts don't support it, then it's not. Find words and phrases that accurately set the scene.)