Ducking the question with the passive voice
Like many editors and writers, we here at Blackfriars hate passive writing because it leaves unanswered the question of who is behind the action. We cringe when we see sentences that say things like, "It is said that" or "Results were obtained" because the reader doesn't know who said the quote or who created the results. Therefore, it was a bit of a shock when we read this headline in the Boston Globe yesterday morning:
Your eighth-grade grammar teacher may not classify this sentence as passive, but it certainly does beg the question of who created the warnings. Out of curiousity, I looked over at the collection of headlines on this story at Google, where I found a large number of headlines that were similarly passive. For example:
The interesting thing about all these passive voice headlines is that nearly all of the 544 stories avoided the unasked question: who warned the FAA 52 times about Al Qeida? The New York Times answers that question today on their editorial page by saying:
OK, so imagine you are the analyst sitting in the CIA writing your 10th or 20th warning to the FAA about the fact that there's an organization with a plan to use commercial aircraft for suicide missions. After 20 tries, do you think you might pass on the same data to someone else, say, maybe the National Security Advisor, to get more attention? We'll drop the story at this point, since there is an article in the same issue of the Times about Richard Clarke writing then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice a memo with that exact warning. But there's a point here: the stories with the passive voice headline made the FAA look like the evil government agency that ignored the warnings. But if the headlines had been written in the active voice, a lot more questions might have been asked of the FBI, the CIA, and the White House about their roles in these 9/11 warnings. Passive voice allows subjects to duck accountability unless you have some dogged reporters -- or a picky writing vigilante like me.
The moral of this story? Next time you see passive voice in the headline, ask yourself who did the action being described. You might get some surprising insights.
FAA received many warnings on Qaeda before 9/11 attacks
Your eighth-grade grammar teacher may not classify this sentence as passive, but it certainly does beg the question of who created the warnings. Out of curiousity, I looked over at the collection of headlines on this story at Google, where I found a large number of headlines that were similarly passive. For example:
Fort Worth Star Telegram: FAA was warned of al Qaeda
The Olympian: FAA warned of network plot before attacks
Minneapolis Star Tribune: FAA was warned of possible hijackings
The interesting thing about all these passive voice headlines is that nearly all of the 544 stories avoided the unasked question: who warned the FAA 52 times about Al Qeida? The New York Times answers that question today on their editorial page by saying:
The F.A.A. got the reports through a 24-hour liaison
it maintained with the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the State Department.
It's not clear from this latest report,
or at least the portion the White House thought fit for
public consumption, whether those agencies passed
on the warnings to the White House.
OK, so imagine you are the analyst sitting in the CIA writing your 10th or 20th warning to the FAA about the fact that there's an organization with a plan to use commercial aircraft for suicide missions. After 20 tries, do you think you might pass on the same data to someone else, say, maybe the National Security Advisor, to get more attention? We'll drop the story at this point, since there is an article in the same issue of the Times about Richard Clarke writing then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice a memo with that exact warning. But there's a point here: the stories with the passive voice headline made the FAA look like the evil government agency that ignored the warnings. But if the headlines had been written in the active voice, a lot more questions might have been asked of the FBI, the CIA, and the White House about their roles in these 9/11 warnings. Passive voice allows subjects to duck accountability unless you have some dogged reporters -- or a picky writing vigilante like me.
The moral of this story? Next time you see passive voice in the headline, ask yourself who did the action being described. You might get some surprising insights.
posted by Carl Howe at
2:42 PM
| View blog reactions
| 
