Journalists don’t use passive voice to take away blame from the police, but because this is a story about the e-bike rider. In active voice, this would read “Police kill e-bike rider in collision”, which takes the focus away from the victim and shifts it onto the police. Is that better?
Language can be misused but I don’t think it’s the case here. And I guess using the active voice in traffic accidents crashes before they are investigated would need unnecessary sprinkling of “allegedly”.
Journalists don’t use passive voice to take away blame from the police, but because this is a story about the e-bike rider. In active voice, this would read “Police kill e-bike rider in collision”, which takes the focus away from the victim and shifts it onto the police. Is that better?
Adding that the passive voice is still used if the victim is a cop. Examples from the same outlet:
Language can be misused but I don’t think it’s the case here. And I guess using the active voice in traffic
accidentscrashes before they are investigated would need unnecessary sprinkling of “allegedly”.Don’t call it an accident.
Fair point.
That’s right. They do it to take away blame from drivers.
And the council/government.
“Lack of suitable bike infrastructure and community education sees another cyclist killed by car in easily preventable situation.”
No they do it to avoid being sued by litigious gangs full of murderous thugs.
Yes.