3 ms·

I was just thinking the same, this is quite the weasel wording. Not only the “losses” but the passive voice. As if Amazon is a person who walked to work one day

by latexr 1y ago

I was just thinking the same, this is quite the weasel wording. Not only the “losses” but the passive voice. As if Amazon is a person who walked to work one day and realise it has a hole in its pocket from which thousands of jobs fell off. “Oh well, these things happen, not my fault and nothing I can do about it”, Amazon says as it shrugs its shoulders and whistles down the factory floor with a skip in its step.

jwmerrill 1y ago
“Passive voice” is a grammatical term. “Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses,” is not an example of the passive voice. “14,000 workers were fired by Amazon,” is an example of the passive voice. There is not a 1:1 relationship between being vague about agency and using the passive voice.
- happimess 1y ago
  I've heard it described as the "exculpative voice".
- qsi 1y ago
  Correct. There's nothing vague about "the burglar was shot by me." It's passive but crystal clear.
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
  Grammatically correct, but missing the narrative subtext. "Job losses" is a passive construction because it hides the fact that the agent - Amazon - made a deliberate and conscious decision to destroy these jobs. People do occasionally lose things deliberately, but more usually it happens to someone through carelessness or accident, often with associated regret. This is an example of framing, where a narrative spin is put on events. "Amazon destroyed 14,000 jobs" would be far more accurate. But we never see that construction from corporate-controlled media outlets. Companies create jobs. They never destroy them. "Losses" always happen because of regrettable circumstances or outside forces. The company's hand is always forced. It's never a choice made out of greed (the truth) but because of a plausible excuse.
- justonceokay 1y ago
  GP obviously meant passive tone, not passive noun-verb relationship.
  - harvey9 1y ago
    Still puts them in a weak position to critique others on their use of words. We might like to hold the BBC to a higher standard but none of the big news sites are good at details like this.
    - latexr 1y ago
      True, I did make a mistake, but in my defense I’m but one person making a passing comment in an internet forum. Even then, if I had noticed my error before the edit window (which I do not control) expired, I would have issued a correction. The BBC, on the other hand, is a major organisation employing professional writers and editors. It’s their job to inform clearly, not throw mud in people’s faces with the kind of indirect wording used to conceal intentions. The situations are not in the same category. I made a mistake in word usage; the article’s title is manipulating meaning, using public relations-style words carefully chosen for the goal of minimising backlash. Furthermore, I don’t think you need to be perfect to point out imperfection. It is perfectly valid to go to a restaurant and say “this pizza tastes bad” even if you don’t know how to cook.
mkipper 1y ago
This also stuck out to me, but in defense of Amazon (yuck), I don't see that language directly from anyone at Amazon. They use the regular "reduction in corporate workforce" BS that every big company on earth uses. It just seems like an editorial choice unless I'm missing something.

by latexr 1y ago

jwmerrill 1y ago

“Passive voice” is a grammatical term. “Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses,” is not an example of the passive voice. “14,000 workers were fired by Amazon,” is an example of the passive voice. There is not a 1:1 relationship between being vague about agency and using the passive voice.

happimess 1y ago
I've heard it described as the "exculpative voice".
qsi 1y ago
Correct. There's nothing vague about "the burglar was shot by me." It's passive but crystal clear.
TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
Grammatically correct, but missing the narrative subtext. "Job losses" is a passive construction because it hides the fact that the agent - Amazon - made a deliberate and conscious decision to destroy these jobs. People do occasionally lose things deliberately, but more usually it happens to someone through carelessness or accident, often with associated regret. This is an example of framing, where a narrative spin is put on events. "Amazon destroyed 14,000 jobs" would be far more accurate. But we never see that construction from corporate-controlled media outlets. Companies create jobs. They never destroy them. "Losses" always happen because of regrettable circumstances or outside forces. The company's hand is always forced. It's never a choice made out of greed (the truth) but because of a plausible excuse.
justonceokay 1y ago
GP obviously meant passive tone, not passive noun-verb relationship.
- harvey9 1y ago
  Still puts them in a weak position to critique others on their use of words. We might like to hold the BBC to a higher standard but none of the big news sites are good at details like this.
  - latexr 1y ago
    True, I did make a mistake, but in my defense I’m but one person making a passing comment in an internet forum. Even then, if I had noticed my error before the edit window (which I do not control) expired, I would have issued a correction. The BBC, on the other hand, is a major organisation employing professional writers and editors. It’s their job to inform clearly, not throw mud in people’s faces with the kind of indirect wording used to conceal intentions. The situations are not in the same category. I made a mistake in word usage; the article’s title is manipulating meaning, using public relations-style words carefully chosen for the goal of minimising backlash. Furthermore, I don’t think you need to be perfect to point out imperfection. It is perfectly valid to go to a restaurant and say “this pizza tastes bad” even if you don’t know how to cook.

mkipper 1y ago

This also stuck out to me, but in defense of Amazon (yuck), I don't see that language directly from anyone at Amazon. They use the regular "reduction in corporate workforce" BS that every big company on earth uses. It just seems like an editorial choice unless I'm missing something.