Words we never need

I get where you're coming from, but a couple of weeks ago I covered a Podunk and Hicksville softball game. When it finished, I walked 100 yards and covered the Podunk vs. Hicksville baseball game that was being played simultaneously. Both gamers were in the paper the next day.
It's not the first time that has happened, and there's not always art to visually differentiate the stories. So there might be times when throwing the sport in the headline is helpful, if not downright necessary.

 

Use sigs or graphics with the print edition. My former paper FINALLY went to this (I clamored for it for years since we already did it everywhere else in the sports section) and those sigs or small white baseball or small yellow softballs take up less real estate than putting Baseball or Softball in 30-point headline font.

If inside, pretty good chance you are already using a sig.

If online, use HS SOFT: Podunk ...
(Still shorter than using softball or baseball in middle of headline)

 

TRIPLE: in reference to a three-pointer.

PLATED: in reference to scoring a run.

Both make me want to kick a puppy.

 

We used to use sigs and I fought for them in our last redesign a few years ago, but people smarter than I (who are all now long gone, mostly through various levels of incompetence) thought they cluttered things up so they were eliminated.

And your online suggestion really isn't any shorter. "HS SOFT: " and "softball" are both eight characters.
I agree you should avoid it if you can. Just saying there are times when it's actually helpful.

 

Does it? Why?

 

Add "trey" for a three-pointer.

And I've seen this one a lot recently in stories involving numbers: "Attendance is expected to fall by 25 percent. Can say "bye-bye" to "by": "Attendance is expected to fall 25 percent."

 

Shooters gonna shoot

 

Today I realized the term "rewind" has no meaning to people under 40.

 

For similar reasons, I stopped calling them highlight reel plays and started calling them highlight DVD plays.

 

Retweet worthy highlight or GIF worthy play.

 

I think there are two categories for what we're talking about here. Neither allows for constant use of the cliches/superfluous words, etc.

There are some, like "set a new record," that are just plain wrong. You never, never, never use them.

And there's a second category, like using "4 minutes, 3 seconds" for "4:03" or using "very" as a qualifier -- I'd say there's a place for them, but a very limited place. I would only use them when I stepped back and surmised that I needed to spell out a point. For example, there has been occasion when I'd use "very limited" over "limited" to convey a level.*

I guess the bottom line is, this is why you try to work second-read time into your piece and examine your words. Especially if your words don't go through an editor anymore.

* -- See what I did there?

 

A related issue: synonyms used in place of a common word, because a 5th grade teacher once mistakenly chastised a student for repeating a word.

As in this Washington Post story, where the writer bends himself into knots to avoid using the same word twice in a sentence. Instead of referring to the Capitol, because he has already mentioned Capitol Hill, he calls it "the eponymous building." Sort of like calling a banana an elongated yellow fruit to avoid saying banana again.

(Tip: Great writing often repeats a word. Start with the Gettysburg Address as an example.)

"For about six months in 2017, Pruitt leased a room in a condo co-owned by the woman in the Capitol Hill neighborhood, a stately enclave where the white dome of the eponymous building can be seen looming above brick rowhouses on many streets."

I like the commenter's distinction about redundancies vs. unnecessary words. Redundancy or overemphasis seems to be the norm: "Smith named new coach at Podunk High."