Roads
Excessive passive voice, linguistic detachment observed in Culpeper road fatality
No news story ever began saying, "A person was killed yesterday when he collided with a bullet moving at high speed in the opposite direction." Yet that's exactly how news stories about traffic "accidents" often begin, like this Post story:
Guard rail collides with bottom of car after passenger cabin crushed from impact? Photo by Fetchy.
Four people ranging in age from 19 to 21 were killed early yesterday in Culpeper County, Va., when their car collided with a vehicle that was going the wrong way, Virginia State Police said.I didn't know cars could drive themselves, except maybe those in the DARPA Urban Challenge. And it doesn't appear one of those robotic cars was responsible for yesterday's crash in Culpeper. Yet the Post story words itself as though the car drove itself. Of course, a human was driving the car. Neither did the story write itself. We should say, Post reporter Martin Weil wrote, "The driver of the Tahoe was identified as a 29-year-old man." (Identified by whom?)Police said a Chevy Tahoe sport-utility vehicle was driving on the wrong side of a two-lane stretch of Route 3 when it struck the Toyota Corolla about 2:50 a.m.
Just based on the facts in the Post article, we can say, "A 29 year old man was driving his Chevy Tahoe SUV on the wrong side of Route 3 early yesterday when he struck and killed four people in a Toyota Corolla." Why can't the printing press at the Washington Post say that?
Many fields use too much passive voice. MRI reports, for example, read like this: "Mild Straightening of the cervical lordosis is demonstrated. Mild mucosal thickening is incidentally noted at the floor of the sphenoid sinuses." The straightening didn't observe itself. The doctor observed it. Why not just say that on the report?
After doctors, journalists writing about car crashes seem to overuse passive voice the most. Though we only seem to do this for cars, not for bicycles. In the excellent book Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us), author Tom Vanderbilt (and not any inanimate object) writes,
In a study, [Ian Walker of the University of Bath in England] had subjects look at various photographs of traffic and describe what was going on. When subjects saw a photograph with a car, they were more likely to refer to the photo's subject as a thing. When subjects looked at a picture that showed a pedestrian or a cyclist, they were more likely to use language that described a person. It somehow seems natural to say "the bicyclist yielded to the car," while it sounds strange to say "the driver hit the bicycle." In one photograph Walker showed, a woman was visible in a car, while a man on a bike waited behind. Although the woman could be clearly seen in the car, she was never referred to as a person, while the cyclist almost always was. Even when she was visible she wans rendered invisible by the car.Vanderbilt goes on to explain how this psychological bias creates real safety consequences. When we see a cyclist, we tend to look at his or her face. That triggers complex cognitive processing, like trying to identify the person or discern his or her emotions. Those automatic brain functions are great when you see a person across a room or in a dark alley and need to figure out if you know him or her or whether he or she is a threat, but in traffic, it can distract important brain cycles away from the task of not hitting the bicyclist.
Finally, our habit of dehumanizing the actions of cars tends to create assumptions that their actions are not actually someone's responsibility. A driver hit and killed some people in another car in Culpeper. It's extremely unlikely his car magically malfunctioned. And even if it did, we don't engage in the same linguistic contortions to say, for example, that a police officer's bullet impacted a suspected robber, who had himself been holding a gun which fired into someone else earlier in the day. That would be silly. So is this.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
by Local on Mar 23, 2009 2:51 pm • link • report
by Squalish on Mar 23, 2009 2:52 pm • link • report
So to answer your question: Why can't the printing press at the Washington Post say that? It is laziness and inexperience.
by Rj on Mar 23, 2009 2:54 pm • link • report
I would be careful with pinning the 'killing' part to strongly on the SUV driver. From the current information I can not distill whether this is a truly tragic accident, or a true killing due to negligence of the SUV driver.
Last, on naming. The odd thing is that the names of the victims probably will be out before that of the driver. This is sad. I would prefer no names whatsoever in the article until there is evidence that the driver was reckless.
It's funny that English has no single word for someone who drives the wrong way. In Dutch it's a "ghost driver". So then you could have said: A 29-year old ghost driver in an SUV killed four passengers aged 19 to 21 of a Toyota in Culpepper Co yesterday, VA State Police said. That puts everything in the right order: actor, action, object, details.
However, I do like your sensitivity towards the language of such articles.
by Jasper on Mar 23, 2009 2:55 pm • link • report
If I'm standing in front of you and then my fist hits your face, we can still say I "punched" you, even if for some reason a neurological disorder made me do it and I'm not liable for battery. The driver took some action and some people died. That's "killing".
And as for "tragic accident", drivers are responsible for operating their vehicle safely. The facts as reported here don't seem to leave a lot of room for total innocence on the driver's part. What specific charge should there be? We don't know, but unless a nefarious person rewired the vehicle to operate it by remote control, the driver was probably responsible for operating it safely.
by David Alpert on Mar 23, 2009 3:02 pm • link • report
by Sean Robertson on Mar 23, 2009 3:03 pm • link • report
The best argument against 'bigger car = safer' is that in reality it's 'bigger than average car = safer in some types of collision', and the ridiculousness of the end-goal, having us driving around in main battle tanks.
PS: Title change. Now my joke makes no sense.
by Squalish on Mar 23, 2009 3:18 pm • link • report
by Froggie on Mar 23, 2009 3:18 pm • link • report
Sort of part of why I try to use mass transit whenever possible. I think the Metro is a bit safer...
by Cavan on Mar 23, 2009 3:25 pm • link • report
David has an excellent point about assigning blame rather than just accepting car collisions as something equivalent to snowstorms. They're completely human tragedies, not uncontrollable Acts of God. Our language describes them more as something humans can't control.
by Cavan on Mar 23, 2009 3:37 pm • link • report
by Steve on Mar 23, 2009 3:56 pm • link • report
by Local on Mar 23, 2009 4:01 pm • link • report
It's just as likely the driver(s) on the wrong side of the road were dozing off as intoxicated. i don't know the stats off-hand but I think "sleepiness" is responsible for as many or more incidents of loss of control of the vehicle as "intoxication". Does killing people b/c you should have been pulled off sleeping instead of driving carry the same legal responsibility/culpability as being intoxicated?
Thanks David for bringing this up.
by Bianchi on Mar 23, 2009 4:01 pm • link • report
by Brad on Mar 23, 2009 4:02 pm • link • report
It's something that a majority of the car-driving populace can never achieve, mathematically.
The converse is also true - if everybody for some reason were to drive a much smaller car, it doesn't help or hurt safety in collisions between those cars, because all that matters is that you're heavier than the average, not that you're heavy.
by Squalish on Mar 23, 2009 4:12 pm • link • report
In this article, I think the focus should be on the fact that the Toyota riders were killed more so than that the SUV driver killed the victims.
The verb 'to kill' covers a very wide of meanings. In this case I do believe that the victims were killed by the actions of the driver, but to directly state that the driver killed the victims creeps too close to murder.
To put it differently: The fact that a car can be used as a murder weapon and killing device, does not mean that we can blindly assume that every car driver that is involved in a deadly accident is a killer or murderer. We have the presumption of innocence.
So, in summary, I agree that articles on traffic accidents are written in a very car-centric style. You are right that they often assume carelessness of the victims in stead of the driver. That is wrong. However, I do want to raise the point that care should be taken when using the verb 'to kill'.
by Jasper on Mar 23, 2009 4:16 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on Mar 23, 2009 4:28 pm • link • report
Furthermore, the wording of this particular article ("when their car collided with a vehicle going the wrong way") is awkward, but not because it improperly uses the passive voice. "Four people were killed hen they were struck by a vehicle going the wrong way" would assign responsibility to the car going the wrong way (though not necessarily the driver), but would still use the passive voice.
by Noah on Mar 23, 2009 5:42 pm • link • report
These comments just prove my point. We have this bizarre aversion to using any words that even might imply or suggest culpability, even if they don't actually say so, when it comes to car crashes. Unless we are totally certain the driver deliberately mowed people down in cold blood, so many people get so squeamish about saying that the driver killed some people from operating the vehicle. We have no such compunction about other types of actions that result in death.
by David Alpert on Mar 23, 2009 5:51 pm • link • report
Changing the way we talk and write about collisions caused by humans driving vehicles is the first step.
This morning, after I was doored on my bike and the driver fled the scene, I filed an accident report and the cops impounded his car.
by Anna M on Mar 23, 2009 6:19 pm • link • report
Perhaps because we can all too easily see how we ourselves could kill someone in a car accident? (Or, conversely, be killed by someone driving a car?) I cannot easily imagine killing (or being killed by) someone with a firearm, accidentally or otherwise. But every time I get behind the wheel ... well someone might die.
By thinking of traffic "accidents" in the passive voice, like an act of God, I can set a little psychological distance around the possibility of those deaths.
by Paul Souders on Mar 23, 2009 7:01 pm • link • report
by spookiness on Mar 23, 2009 7:54 pm • link • report
Courts don't convict people of killing, that is simply a fact. They convict of murder, manslaughter, reckless driving, etc. The statement that he drove a car in the wrong lane which collided with their car and killed them is simply a statement of fact. Not blame or criminality.
by David desJardins on Mar 23, 2009 9:00 pm • link • report
The main purpose of operating a vehicle is transporation. In very rare cases you can have someone purposely "runing someone down". (For example, we've read newspapers accounts about people "driving their car through a crowd".) But in most cases, when someone gets hurt or dies as a result of an automobile collision it really IS the result of an accident. It involves a car being misused for its intended purpose. This is not analogious to a gun being correctly used for its respective intended purpose.
On that basis, Brad's explanation is right on target. Newspapers shouldn't be running to the conclusion that the operator of a car misused it.
by Lance on Mar 23, 2009 9:07 pm • link • report
Correct...that's for the courts to decide, if it comes to that.
by Froggie on Mar 23, 2009 9:53 pm • link • report
by David desJardins on Mar 23, 2009 9:56 pm • link • report
Person A strikes person B with a knife. Blood comes out and person B dies. Would it be okay for the newspaper to say that person A killed person B with a knife? It could have been an accident, or self defense.
A court would have to determine if there was murder, or manslaughter, or negligence, or whatever. A newspaper wouldn't decide. Nevertheless, A killed B. The newspaper can write, "A killed B". If they wanted to really hedge, they could say, "A struck B with a knife." They don't have to say, "B intersected with the point of a knife being held by A" to avoid insinuating any wrongdoing.
by David Alpert on Mar 23, 2009 10:11 pm • link • report
The story is not about who was killed by whom. The story is about who was killed by what. The what is the is the vile, hated and despised SUV.
In the world of journalism today people are the victims of acts committed by out of control SUVs.
There are dozens of stores like that published every week.
The purpose of the stories is not to report what happened. The purpose of the stories is to point out that a vile, hated and despised SUV is the primary suspect in the reported incident.
A similar story with similar results where no SUVs or trucks as an objects in the story will make little or no mention of the types of vehicles involved.
by Sand Box John on Mar 23, 2009 11:51 pm • link • report
David, the difference in the context in which the knife is being used. A knife (unlike a gun) can indeed have a benevolent context ... cutting your food for instance. If someone happens to get hurt while someone is using the knife for cutting food, then I think you'd hear something like "the knife slipped and cut his hand". Similarly, when it is crystal clear that a car is being used for as a weapon, you'll indeed read things like "he drove his car through the crowd on the sidewalk".
In most instances the context of a car causing damage is an occurance during its use as transportation. As such, the default for newspapers (and regular people) is to not automatically blame the person ... It's not like they went into the car with the intent of hurting someone. Unless they did ... and you know it for sure ...
I.e., I don't think this has anything to do with anyone trying to "protect" motorists from their actions ... It's all about "what is an accident" ... and if someone does something with their car/knife/whatever that they didn't intend to do, then it is an accident ... whether or not it happened because they were careless, inexperienced, or even negligent. When someone goes out with intent to commit a crime, then it isn't an accident ... So either the car, the knife, or the gun could conceivably be in either situation ... depending on the context that they are being used. And yes, the presumption is that a car operating on the road is being used for transportation and not for running down people. Just like the presumption for guns tends to be the opposite in many folks' minds
by Lance on Mar 24, 2009 12:03 am • link • report
That's just not true. Sometimes it's a predictable consequence of their decisions. If you're driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.30, you might not intend to hurt anyone, but it's still not an accident if you do.
by David desJardins on Mar 24, 2009 12:12 am • link • report
by Bianchi on Mar 24, 2009 1:19 am • link • report
that's not factually correct. the driver of car A did not hit and kill people in car B. the car he was driving hit the car they were riding in.
grump about the passive voice all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the collision was between two cars. the construction above, strictly interpreted, indicates that the driver in car A made personal contact with the people in car B. did he get out of his tahoe at 70 mph and climb into the other car to pummel them to death?
by AJ on Mar 24, 2009 5:31 am • link • report
by Christine on Mar 24, 2009 8:06 am • link • report
by dcd on Mar 24, 2009 9:42 am • link • report
Your suggested title is tautological.
by Christine on Mar 24, 2009 9:53 am • link • report
@ Noah: You make my point. Presumption of innocence. We don't know what was going on.
@ David: I've thought about it a bit. I would accept Four people were killed in a car accident, but not An SUV driver killed four people. The whole grammatical foundation under the passive voice is that sometimes you do not want to focus on the actor/subject of a phrase but on the action of object of a phrase. Traffic accidents are perfect examples. The news is that four people died. How? They were killed in a car accident. Guilt needs to be determined in a court of law.
Now, aside from that, there are obvious cases. If we find out that the driver was 10 times of the limit with alcohol, speeding 20 mph and turning left on a red light, while the victims were just cautiously passing through a green light, we can safely assume the driver was a reckless idiot and then he killed, if not murdered the victims.
Until that is the case, I would like to stay away from assigning blame. Articles would improve though if the "journalists" writing them would inquire about the circumstances and publish those as well. What about the location, is it a dangerous spot? Was anybody breaking the law? Is there reason to believe that someone was reckless?
The reason that you have to be very careful with assigning blame is that you are talking about an anonymous individual that can not decently defend him or herself in the media.
by Jasper on Mar 24, 2009 10:56 am • link • report
They were killed in a car crash. Why presume it was an accident?
I would like to stay away from assigning blame.
You think maybe he had a good reason for driving on the wrong side of the road?
by David desJardins on Mar 24, 2009 11:18 am • link • report
You think maybe he had a good reason for driving on the wrong side of the road?
I am not an expert, but I don't think many people drive on the wrong side of the road on purpose.
by Jasper on Mar 24, 2009 12:14 pm • link • report
But that's not the question we're talking about: Did he kill four people through his actions? No one is claiming he did so on purpose.
by David desJardins on Mar 24, 2009 12:29 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on Mar 24, 2009 12:33 pm • link • report
Cause, effect. You pull a trigger, a bullet flies, it hits another human, that human dies. You caused that person's death. You drive an SUV on the wrong side of the road, it hits another vehicle, the passengers in that vehicle hit parts of the vehicles they were not intended to hit at high velocities, and those people die. You caused their death.
"Kill" means "to cause the death of", with no suggestion of intent. I can't imagine a journalist avoids the term "kill" to avoid legal consequences; it's much more likely they are just following the pattern of other articles they've encountered, which is the point of the original post.
by Josh on Mar 24, 2009 12:42 pm • link • report
I speak as a former newspaper reporter, now working as a forensic expert in accdent reconstruction. I've seen this stuff from all angles.
The passive voice is obviously bogus, although in many cases the active voice would be not much more informative. As in, "said a police source who did not wish to be identified."
But much of the vagueness in the wording of the article is necessary, because the reporter doesn't have independent confirmation of all facts.
To give you an example, whenever I write an accident report, I begin with a disclaimer paragraph, telling the reader that it's a preliminary report and my opinions are subject to change if further information becomes available. And that's after months of research. Evidence of a mechanical failure may be months in coming, and may be hotly contested by the other side. It may be garbage science presented as if it were credible -- a situation newspapers have trouble presenting fairly.
When I used to write up car accidents at the newspaper, I was told in no uncertain terms: we were getting preliminary information, and the last thing we wanted was to be dragged into the case because we printed something that later turned out to be false. Sometimes cars get moved around after accidents to mix up the forensic evidence at the scene. Sometimes people switch places to get a different "driver" behind the wheel. Sometimes cops have trouble telling who was in what car.
For all these reasons, the articles were vague. It kept the newspaper out of trouble.
John Schubert
Limeport.org
Coopersburg, Pennsylvania
by John Schubert on Mar 24, 2009 6:10 pm • link • report
Add a Comment