nilsskirnir, 7 months ago

@mazouzi Yeah, those Gaza folks just died from the noise.
I am happy to use ‘slaughtered’ for both cases.

LALegault, 7 months ago

@mazouzi @ericmacknight

When they’re in the business of language, it isn’t a mistake either. Montreal news did the same.

stpaultim, 7 months ago

I don't know if it's intentional manipulation, but it's at least very sloppy.

FWIW - I clicked on the "Follow the Latest" link and was taken to this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-67050350

#BBC

violetmadder, 7 months ago

@stpaultim The passive voice trick is used all over the place. Sometimes inconsistently/sloppily, yes-- probably gets hard to keep straight.

antones_mp, 7 months ago

deleted_by_author

stpaultim, 7 months ago

@antones_mp

Interesting. I'm now seeing what you are. It's now the opposite of what it was in the original online post.

Maybe someone thought that reversing it would somehow balance out the sloppiness and make it seem less biased?

#BBC

philheppenstall, 7 months ago

deleted_by_author

stpaultim, 7 months ago

@philheppenstall

Interesting. Sometimes the simple explanation is the right one.

kenmarable, 7 months ago

@philheppenstall @stpaultim 1) There is other identical phrasing between the two statements that was not changed.

2. If it is just avoiding repetitive phrasing, then it'd likely be used 50/50 each way, right? Has it been?

Whether deliberate or unconscious, the issue of journalists using active vs passive voice in this exact way has been pointed out for years. It is extremely common when U.S. media covers problems with police as well.

philheppenstall, 7 months ago

deleted_by_author

kenmarable, 7 months ago

@philheppenstall @stpaultim And sometimes people choose not to see what they don't want to see. I'll leave it at that, too.