I want to expand on the grammatical explanations and the implications these headlines create. Firstly, it’s important to note what active and passive voices are and why we use them.
Active voice puts the agent of the action in the subject position. It places emphasis on the person who did the action. Headline #2 is active. We know who did the action. Who struck the journalist? Protestors.
Passive voice puts the receiver of the action in the subject position. It places emphasis on the receiver of the action, and not on the person who did the action. Both Headline #1 and #3 are in passive, but they’re slightly different.
#1 is non-agentive. Who shot the photographer in the eye? We don’t know. It doesn’t say. Was it the police? Protestors? Someone else? Readers are left to draw their own conclusions or insert their own biases to fill in the blanks.
#3 is agentive. Who hit the reporter with a pepper ball? An officer. We know who did the action, but because the sentence is passive, the emphasis is on the reporter who received the action, and not on the officer who did the action.
It’s important to note these differences and be aware of how we use active and passive sentences. Passive sentences are not inherently bad; there are times and places where they are useful and more appropriate than active sentences.
HOWEVER, there is a clear pattern of passive voice headlines obscuring police brutality or racism. We see this same pattern again and again. Police shot a photographer in the eye. An officer hit a reporter with a pepper ball on live television. Omitting the agent of these actions, or shifting it out of focus, is harmful.
So as you continue to read news, and see headlines likes the ones above, ask yourself: Who did these actions? Who benefits from being named? Who benefits from being omitted? What kind of narrative is being created?
stormborns
dailybridgerton
yousharknotpass
andulkaphoto
turnnoffyourmind
romaincrisis
prguitarman
gamechangershow
