How passive headlines erase actors—and accountability
Headlines do not merely report events. They assign—or withhold—responsibility.
In many news stories involving harm, the most consequential decision is not which facts are included, but how the action itself is framed. One of the most common techniques is deceptively simple: remove the actor from the sentence.
What remains is an event that appears to have happened on its own.
The Move: Action Without an Actor
Consider these familiar constructions:
• “Man dies after altercation”
• “Officer-involved shooting leaves one dead”
• “Protester injured during incident”
• “Force was used to restore order”
Each describes harm. None clearly state who caused it.
Grammatically, these sentences rely on passive voice or abstract phrasing. The structure allows the verb to remain while the subject is softened, obscured, or omitted entirely. Harm becomes something that occurred, rather than something that was done.
Why It Works
Passive constructions are not accidental. They serve several functions at once:
• They reduce perceived blame
• They slow emotional response
• They shift attention away from decision-makers
• They signal institutional neutrality
By avoiding direct attribution, the headline appears careful, restrained, and objective. But restraint is not the same as truthfulness.
When responsibility is blurred, readers are less likely to ask follow-up questions. The sentence feels complete—even though something essential is missing.
What It Hides
When an actor disappears from a headline, so does accountability.
Compare:
• “Officer-involved shooting” vs.
• “Police officer shot and killed a civilian”
Both may describe the same event. But only one names an agent capable of choice.
The first suggests an unfortunate circumstance.
The second acknowledges an action taken by a person, within a system, under specific rules.
Passive language does not deny harm—but it detaches harm from human agency, making it easier to accept, excuse, or move past.
A Clear Rewrite
This does not require inflammatory language. It requires specificity.
• Instead of “Man dies after altercation” → “Man dies after being restrained by police”
• Instead of “Force was used” → “Officers used batons and tear gas”
• Instead of “Protester injured during incident” → “Protester injured when struck by vehicle”
Clarity is not bias. It is accuracy.
What to Watch For Next Time
When you read a headline about harm, ask:
• Who acted?
• Is the verb doing real work—or hiding it?
• Would this sentence make sense in active voice?
If the answer is unclear, responsibility may have been quietly edited out.
Language shapes not only what we know, but what we feel compelled to question. When actors vanish from headlines, so does our expectation that someone answer for what happened.
Look again.
The Humane Herald 