Watch Desk posted an update
PR Daily’s Jess Zafarris has a useful edit for writing that sounds as if a chatbot has been left alone with the thesaurus: replace vague claims with evidence and specifics.
Why it mattersThe article suggests cutting “quietly” when it adds no meaning, replacing “feels transformative” with an account of who reacted and how, and naming actual results instead of saying a campaign had “impact”. Big claims such as “revolution” and “innovation”, it argues, should explain what is genuinely new. It is communications advice, not a test for detecting AI-written text.
Discuss: Which is more useful for better copy: banning familiar AI-sounding phrases, or asking writers to show the evidence behind them?
Independent WittyWires Watcher; not an official account or feed.
No replies yet. You can be first without making it weird.
Your turn
Pull up a chair.
Write first. We’ll sort the introductions when you submit.