Comments on Excessive passive voice, linguistic detachment observed in Culpeper road fatality - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by John Schubert

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:10:32 EDT

David, I'm in partial agreement with your article. 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

Comment by Josh

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:42:34 EDT

@AJ: So the armed robber didn't kill the shop owner; the bullet which flew out of his gun did. It's not like the robber held the bullet in his hand and pummeled the shop owner with it. 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.

Comment by Bianchi

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:33:30 EDT

I agree w/ David des Jardins, "Crash" is far more neutral then "accident". "Accident" does the opposite of assigning blame. It assigns innocence. "Crash" describes the event without assigning innocene or blame. It's important becuase language-shapes-thought-shapes-language. The norm to use "accident' whenever someone is killed by getting struck by a car is an example of the bias that diminshes driver responisbility.

Comment by David desJardins

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:29:49 EDT

I don't think many people drive on the wrong side of the road on purpose. 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.

Comment by Jasper

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:14:38 EDT

@ David dJ: crash, accident, ok. 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.

Comment by David desJardins

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:18:40 EDT

The news is that four people died. How? They were killed in a car accident. 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?

Comment by Jasper

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:56:10 EDT

@ Bianchi: I would accept: Four people were killed in a car accident. Or even Four people were killed in a car accident between an SUV and a passenger car. @ 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.

Comment by Christine

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:53:08 EDT

dcd Your suggested title is tautological.

Comment by dcd

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:42:03 EDT

Perhaps the title of this piece should be, "Local Blogger, Audience Have Way Too Much Time On Their Hands"

Comment by Christine

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:06:15 EDT

Your comments about the use of the passive voice in these reports are off the mark. I think you are recalling, perhaps unconsciously, the common complaint about the use of a phrase like, "died in clashes with the XXX army" when "was killed by the XXX army" is more descriptive. There is very little difference, even in connotation, between "she killed him" and "he was killed by her." I agree with Brad's point, but it is not the voice of the verb used that determines the implication of agency. It is the subject choice (Car vs person) and the choice of verb (died in a collision vs was killed by person driving a car), i.e. the diction.

Comment by AJ

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 05:31:32 EDT

A driver hit and killed some people in another car in Culpeper. 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?

Comment by Bianchi

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:19:20 EDT

Seperate intent from outcome. One person's actions directly resulted in another person's death. It may be an unitentional outcome. The outcome is the same. The manner in which the man drove the car resulted in the death of someone else. Rephrase: The manner in which the man drove the car resulted in someone else getting killed. Seek concision: The man drove the car that killed someone. More concise: The man killed someone. Unintentional? Most likely. Does the intention change the outcome? The manner in which the car was driven is the same with the same results. The other person is dead. The other person was killed. That's the outcome.

Comment by David desJardins

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:12:38 EDT

if someone does something with their car/knife/whatever that they didn't intend to do, then it is an accident ... 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.

Comment by Lance

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:03:49 EDT

"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." 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

Comment by Sand Box John

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:51:33 EDT

David, 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.

Comment by David Alpert

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:11:39 EDT

Lance: OK, let's use a knife instead. Its primary purpose is cutting. Once in a while it's also deliberately or accidentally used to kill. 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.

Comment by David desJardins

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:56:49 EDT

From the tone of some of the comments here, I'm surprised the reporter got away with claiming that the car was on the wrong side of the road. Isn't that awfully judgmental? Maybe we should let a court decide which is the proper side.

Comment by Froggie

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:53:58 EDT

Newspapers shouldn't be running to the conclusion that the operator of a car misused it. Correct...that's for the courts to decide, if it comes to that.

Comment by Lance

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:07:15 EDT

The analogy with someone being killed by a gun is a flawed one. The main purpose of a gun is to kill/maim/hurt/cause damage. When someone operates a gun correctly they intend to kill/maim/hurt/cause. 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.

Comment by David desJardins

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:00:02 EDT

A newspaper can't or shouldn't say "a man killed four people" until he's been convicted of doing so in a court of law. 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.

Comment by spookiness

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:54:53 EDT

One print press peeve of mine is the proliferation of the word "gunman".

Comment by Paul Souders

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:01:38 EDT

"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" 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.

Comment by Anna M

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:19:12 EDT

I agree, we must hold careless drivers responsible - even for accidents - only then will our roads become less threatening environments for cyclists and pedestrians. 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.

Comment by David Alpert

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:51:02 EDT

"Killed" doesn't mean "murdered." A newspaper has no problems saying "a man shot and killed another man during an armed standoff inside a house," for example. He could be mentally ill, or otherwise not responsible for his actions. Maybe it was self defense. They may not say he "murdered" them. But he acted, and they died. That's "killed". There needn't be responsibility in "killed." 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.

Comment by Noah

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:42:02 EDT

There are probably legal considerations here. A newspaper can't or shouldn't say "a man killed four people" until he's been convicted of doing so in a court of law. What if he had a medical emergency, or was mentally ill, or was otherwise not responsible for his actions? It's irresponsible to blame the driver until all the facts are established, and you aren't going to get all of the facts in a local news article published the day after or the day of the event. 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.

Comment by Bianchi

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:28:47 EDT

Jasper, would you accept the language "4 people unintentially killed..."? Someone was killed as a result of someone else's action and that's indisbutible(sp?). The only thing to dispute is the intentions of the one who did the killing. The intentions and/or the degree of neglecting responsibility.

Comment by Jasper

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:16:08 EDT

@ David: Perhaps you took my point wrong. I was not implying that you were pinning the guilt on the driver or not. I raising the point more in general. 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'.

Comment by Squalish

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:12:35 EDT

You missed the other part of the sentence Local. They are only safer if they're larger than the average car they would potentially be colliding with. 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.

Comment by Brad

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:02:13 EDT

I wrote my share of traffic-accident stories for a local newspaper, and so can say that the main reason that newspapers write "Car A and Car B collided" instead of "John Smith ran his car into Jane Jones' car" is because the latter wording is tantamount to accusing Smith of a crime -- a crime that Smith may or may not be charged with, and which may take months or even years to go to trial. One could say, in timeless newspaper fashion, "John Smith allegedly ran his car into Jane Jones' car," but that is awkward as well, because it begs the question: "Did the cars collide or not?" The passive voice has the virtue of definitively stating that two cars collided without exposing the paper to libel charges.

Comment by Bianchi

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:01:48 EDT

I agree with David and Cavan that with incidents involving autos there is always a person to blame for an action. I agree too that the way we use language shapes our assumptions, thoughts, perceptions and whether or not we tend to accept circumstances. I think there is a clear lingistic bias diminshing responisibility borne(sp?) by drivers especially when they kill others who aren't in another car. 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.

Comment by Local

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:01:40 EDT

@ Squalish - Agreed that they are only safer in certain collisions (ie. hitting a smaller car), but in overall survivability, the numbers bear out that there is an increase in death rates with a decrease in size. (Sorry I can't find the study I was looking for offhand, but I think the IIHS did one.)

Comment by Steve

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:56:17 EDT

On the subject of safety on the metro, how many deaths per year are there (which could then be divided by passenger/miles) and how many of the deaths are not suicides?

Comment by Cavan

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:37:58 EDT

Sadly, I attended a funeral back in the fall of 2007 for an old friend who had a similar incident and didn't come out of it as lucky as I did. 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.

Comment by Cavan

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:25:04 EDT

slightly off-topic but a similar thing happened to me back when I used to live outside of Laurel. I was driving on two lane Muirkirk Road through the woods when I saw another driver round a curve and drive towards me in my lane at some high speed (at least 60mph) and accelerating. I took my foot off the gas pedal. Using a quick judgement, I swerved into the left lane (the lane the other driver should have been in). I guessed right, thankfully. The other driver just kept barreling down the road in the wrong lane. This was at about 2am on a Saturday morning. Clearly I was sober. I question that other driver. Sort of part of why I try to use mass transit whenever possible. I think the Metro is a bit safer...

Comment by Froggie

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:18:53 EDT

Agree with Sean. That said, I think David's nitpicking the story wording too much...

Comment by Squalish

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:18:50 EDT

Local: If my math is right, assuming an inelastic head-on collision at 70mph vs 70mph, the equivalent is the Tahoe hitting a brick wall at 37mph, and the Corolla hitting a brick wall at 103mph. The SUV driver's survival was not assured.

State Police spokesman Sgt. Les Tyler said the accident was reported around 2:50 a.m. The deceased are Tyler Scott Harlow, 20, and Joseph Lee Sahnow, 20, both of Ruckersville, Tianna V. Jones, 19, of Stanardsville, and James B. Cook, 21, of Marshfield, Vt. Tyler said all four died at the scene about one-tenth of a mile east of Route 739 (Clay Hill Road). A fifth passenger in the Toyota, 27-year-old Howard John Steiniger of Fredericksburg, was taken to Mary Washington Hospital in Fredericksburg before being transferred to a Richmond hospital. His condition was not available Sunday evening. Since 2007, two others have died near the scene of Sunday’s deadly accident. According to Tyler, 29-year-old Eugene T. Green of Culpeper was driving the wrong way, headed westbound in the eastbound lane of the two lane stretch of highway. Green was driving a 2002 Chevrolet Tahoe. The SUV struck the 2004 Toyota Corolla sedan being driven by Harlow. Green, who Tyler said was not wearing a seatbelt, was also taken to Mary Washington Hospital. Green’s condition was also not available Sunday evening. The accident prompted authorities to close the highway and detour traffic for about six hours while they cleared the scene and investigated the incident. The Culpeper County Sheriff’s Office, Brandy Station Volunteer Fire Company, Richardsville Rescue Squad and Culpeper County paramedics were also called to the scene. “All these agencies are of a big help to the Virginia State Police,” Tyler said. Tyler said the State Police’s accident reconstruction team from the Culpeper division headquarters also responded, along with Culpeper County Commonwealth’s Attorney Gary Close. Alcohol is a suspected factor in the accident, which remains under investigation. It was not clear Sunday evening if or when charges might be filed. Route 3 is the main highway linking Culpeper and Fredericksburg. Eastbound from Culpeper, the four-lane highway becomes two lanes near Stevensburg for several miles before widening to four lanes again near Richardsville.

-The informative Culpeper Star Exponent. 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.

Comment by Sean Robertson

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:03:31 EDT

29 year old driving the wrong way at 2:50 AM? I think you know what I'm thinking - check the driver's BAC immediately. How the heck else do you end up going the wrong way like that? If he was drunk, he should be charged with four counts of manslaughter (or reckless homicide?). And shame on the Post for not even questioning it let alone getting the headline right.

Comment by David Alpert

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:02:32 EDT

Jasper: Thanks. To your point about the 'killing': The driver did kill the people. Maybe some circumstances beyond the driver's control had something to do with it, making the driver not criminally responsible. However, that doesn't mean he didn't kill them. 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.

Comment by Jasper

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:55:31 EDT

I do agree that the word order (victims first, killer later) kinda makes it look like the victims did it to themselves. The fancy-pants well-paid paper writers over at WaPo should know that, but probably would argue that the victims need to be upfront in the phrase because they are the focus of the phrase/article. 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.

Comment by Rj

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:54:06 EDT

Because car accident stories go to the newbies, interns or just plain lazy malcontents within a news organization. So to answer your question: Why can't the printing press at the Washington Post say that? It is laziness and inexperience.

Comment by Squalish

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:52:38 EDT

Change title to "Man allegedly kills four people according to reports, story is written by person allegedly practicing journalism, says local blogger". Or you're not a journalist. Nyaa nyaa nya nyaa nyaa.

Comment by Local

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:51:01 EDT

Tragic result, but not surprising looking at the vehicles involved. The Tahoe pushes 7000 pounds, and the Corolla clocks in at more like 2500. You have to think that stories like these prevent people from buying smaller cars...