If there is a single cliche, trope, or mindless chant that wax omitted by this writer, I'm sure the omission was entirely unintentional.

Hemingway once advised an aspiring writer to "drop all adjectives for a year." It's a great writing exercise. I suggest this author drop all the adjectives and then read it back, and see if there is any substance.

A good writer understands that adjectives are like "accents" in playing in a band. You don't play every note or every chord, you use them and everything else sparingly, so they serve the song. Same with adjectives. They are too often used because the writer either lacks a fact or a way of saying what they really want to say.

It's especially annoying to see article after article saying the exact same things, just a bunch of slogans linked together with no thought or plan, "spice" up with adjectives that only display the lack of real substance. REal substance can be a new or different way of looking at the facts, or revelation of new facts, but it can't be the same tired slams.

Another factor which distinguishes a professional from an amateur or a polemicist from an analyst, is the citing or non-citing of source materials to substantiate every factual claim asserted. Without them, it's just noise.