No it fucking isn’t. So far they have the body. “Some guy finds prisoner’s corpse” communicates rhe same information with the focus on the finder, not the corpse. This is actually a great time to use passive voice because what was found mattered more. Yes I agree it was most likely the prison that stole his organs, but we don’t know that yet and “prison may have stolen organs” is an awful headline.
I guess I respectfully disagree. I think it is bad to not point out the someone is doiing this, even if I personally understand that without any additional information.
You’re just wrong. Although the obvious assumption is that someone did it, and you’re almost certainly correct in that assumption, until you can point out who or why you don’t know that for sure. The best way to communicate the case efficiently is to put up the facts. Then you ask the questions who and why in the article. People complain about passive voice too much here. Cops get the same treatment as others by passive voice because “13 dead, 6 injured in school shooting” is just as common as “man killed by cop.” The phrasing on cops usually separated then more or makes the victim seem less sympathetic, which is the issue, but the passive voice alone is not the problem. In this case, they are not removing a single bit of blame, just presenting what is known as clearly and precisely as possible.
Read the article, talking in the abstract. For the specifics, they can’t prove they forgot/stole the brain yet, and saying it with qualifiers sounds weak as hell.
Precision and efficiency seem not to be your strong suit. You could have just responded to my comment, much faster than copy paste the whole thing. Your argument is not strengthened by putting the whole thing.
No it fucking isn’t. So far they have the body. “Some guy finds prisoner’s corpse” communicates rhe same information with the focus on the finder, not the corpse. This is actually a great time to use passive voice because what was found mattered more. Yes I agree it was most likely the prison that stole his organs, but we don’t know that yet and “prison may have stolen organs” is an awful headline.
I guess I respectfully disagree. I think it is bad to not point out the someone is doiing this, even if I personally understand that without any additional information.
You’re just wrong. Although the obvious assumption is that someone did it, and you’re almost certainly correct in that assumption, until you can point out who or why you don’t know that for sure. The best way to communicate the case efficiently is to put up the facts. Then you ask the questions who and why in the article. People complain about passive voice too much here. Cops get the same treatment as others by passive voice because “13 dead, 6 injured in school shooting” is just as common as “man killed by cop.” The phrasing on cops usually separated then more or makes the victim seem less sympathetic, which is the issue, but the passive voice alone is not the problem. In this case, they are not removing a single bit of blame, just presenting what is known as clearly and precisely as possible.
deleted by creator
Read the article, talking in the abstract. For the specifics, they can’t prove they forgot/stole the brain yet, and saying it with qualifiers sounds weak as hell.
Precision and efficiency seem not to be your strong suit. You could have just responded to my comment, much faster than copy paste the whole thing. Your argument is not strengthened by putting the whole thing.
deleted by creator