neo-neocon » Blog Archive » The passive voice in the news: anything but passive

I’m progressive, after all I’m willing to progress towards the nuclear option aren’t I? Doesn’t that make me progressive?

The day after a recent Netanya suicide bombing, this is how The New York Times headlined its story: “Suicide Bomber and 2 Women Die in Attack at Mall in Israeli Town.” Talk about imprecise language and fuzzy imagery. Were the suicide bomber and the two women killed by a swarm of killer bees? Shot by Israeli police? Felled by simultaneous heart attacks? Were the women perchance accomplices of the bomber?

Would not a more literate – certainly a more accurate – headline have read, “Suicide Bomber Kills Two Women in Attack at Mall in Israeli Town”? It seems that if the Times can’t paint a particular news story in the pale pastels of moral equivalence, the next best thing is to come up with a headline written in what grammarians call the passive voice, in this case lumping a terrorist together with his victims, all three of whom are described as having simply died.

Lest anyone accuse the Monitor of quibbling, consider what language expert Marylaine Block has to say about the use and abuse of the passive voice in writing: “It permits us to sanitize horrendous actions and make them more acceptable. ‘Ethnic cleansing’ sounds so much less brutal than ‘forcing them out of their homes, raping them, putting them in concentration camps, and murdering them.'”

In a telling illustration, Block points out that “‘the Jewish Question’ was a freely debated intellectual issue in the twenties and thirties (and still a valid Library of Congress subject heading as late as 1978). The ‘Jewish Question,’ let us not forget, was whether Jews should be allowed to live. (Note the passive voice. By whom?)”

Block constructs a progression of statements to show “how euphemism and the passive voice have helped give Holocaust denial an aura of intellectual respectability:

“1. The Nazis systematically exterminated 6 million Jews and everybody else they considered defective.

“2. Six million Jews were killed during World War II.

“3. Six million Jews died during World War II.

“4. It is alleged that 6 Million Jews died….”

Yes, I am aware that the Times article obviously went on to tell a more detailed story than was possible in a mere headline, but to a casual reader or skimmer the damage was done before the eyes continued on to the smaller, non-bold text below the byline.

Want some more news as the Times sees fit to print it? A July 21 article by Israel correspondent Greg Myre titled “Israel Defeats Efforts to Delay Gaza Pullout; Protest Thwarted Again” started off with the lead paragraph offering a brief elaboration of the headline. Then suddenly, in the second paragraph, like a news flash interrupting previously scheduled programming, the focus shifted to an entirely different story: “Late on Wednesday, Reuters reported that a Palestinian boy had been stabbed to death by Israelis in the West Bank, citing reports from unidentified Palestinians.”

Th

I think about the same as Harry. The enemy has many advantages, one being absolute dedication to the point of obsession. As the MSM is presently constituted, the enemy will always have a propaganda advantage, even I think up to the point to where the sword descends on their necks in the looming Caliphate. The enemy has oil with which to manipulate economies. The enemy is underrated as far as adroitness in foreign affairs is concerned and usually out-maneuvers their Western counterparts. The enemy is not hampered by considerations of truth, morality or mercy. Anything goes, including using their own babies in suicide bombings.

Our one advantage: Weaponry technology, but this advantage will fall away in a few short years.
 

You mean back when we had supported Stalin against Hitler? That moral?

I cant believe Im discussing morality with someone who thinks Hezbollah is a benevolent organization in the first place.

If we were really just “all about the oil”, we could have just installed a government solely of our choosing without elections (in which women voted), in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Something Im sure you were going to mention as an example of the US promoting something worthwhile but simply slipped your mind.

If we cant get liberals to change their “perceptions” of what our intentions are, how would we convince the ‘Arab street’ of this?

If your so worried about doing whats morally right, you can start by recognizing that relativism and equivocation, apology and appeasement are immoral.

Its time for you to stand up.

Why is our government supporting the Saudi monarchy which does not allow freedom of religion, and oppresses women? (Women are not allowed to vote or drive cars under the Saudi monarchy).

The criteria for alliance is not how women or other religions are treated within the borders of an ally. The criteria is that the state not sponsor terrorism and the Saudis kill a lot of terrorists. The US encourages liberalization among its allies but does not force it – to force it would be Imperialistic.

Hmmm, I just don’t know that you are trying to say, Justaguy. Why don’t you just come out and say it?