3 ms·
> maybe because that information isn't available yet? What do you mean? The article they analyse says that a van struck the cyclist. The information is availab
by krisoft 2y ago
> maybe because that information isn't available yet?
What do you mean? The article they analyse says that a van struck the cyclist. The information is available and is disclosed in the very same article. Yet they use a passive voice.
- gosub100 2y agothe article may not have the final police report, maybe the cyclist veered in front of the van?
- krisoft 2y agoAre we talking about the same article? The one titled “Cyclist injured in collision with van amid rush hour traffic in Cambridge”? The very same article where the sentence they complain about is “he was struck by a van”? What information they can be missing that they can write “he was struck by a van” but not “the van struck him”?
- sleepybrett 2y agoThe laws being what they are in the UK I imagine 100% of the journalism is written in a passive voice. To do otherwise would risk a lawsuit.
- krisoft 2y agoSo you think “ he was struck by a van” is safe from lawsuit while “The van struck the cyclist” would not be? Who would be suing in your opinion? the unidentified van? > I imagine 100% of the journalism is written in a passive voice Only if there were some way to prove or disprove your imagination. Maybe like reading any newspaper from the UK and seeing that not all of it is written in a passive voice.
- gosub100 2y agoThe investigation could reveal the cyclist hit the van, by say, running a stop sign (as cyclists love to do).