Thanks. I’m glad that the recognition of passive language titles is becoming more obvious to everyone. I’m seeing comments, like yours, calling it out more often.
After nearly 3 years of genocide in Gaza I was going mad watching people being accepting of the “Israeli citizen kidnapped from tank” style language.
Sure. But you’re speaking specifically about grammar. I guess I am speaking more generally about the use of passive language not nessacarily “passive voice”.
The action of violence is placed on the object instead of the person/people. It’s not necessarily about strictly passive voice but removing humanity from the victims of the violent actions.
“ICE fired at innocents fleeing in SUV” is more appropriate. It makes it clear that the intent is to cause harm to the victims. The title infers there is possibly some reason to fire shots at a moving vehicle that could be justified in the scenario. Which there wasn’t.
Thanks. I’m glad that the recognition of passive language titles is becoming more obvious to everyone. I’m seeing comments, like yours, calling it out more often.
After nearly 3 years of genocide in Gaza I was going mad watching people being accepting of the “Israeli citizen kidnapped from tank” style language.
This headline isn’t passive voice, though. Passive voice would be “SUV fired at by ICE”. “ICE fired at SUV” is active voice.
Sure. But you’re speaking specifically about grammar. I guess I am speaking more generally about the use of passive language not nessacarily “passive voice”.
The action of violence is placed on the object instead of the person/people. It’s not necessarily about strictly passive voice but removing humanity from the victims of the violent actions.
“ICE fired at innocents fleeing in SUV” is more appropriate. It makes it clear that the intent is to cause harm to the victims. The title infers there is possibly some reason to fire shots at a moving vehicle that could be justified in the scenario. Which there wasn’t.