"Passive voice isn’t just a vice of journalists": A response to SiobhanFTB

“Passive voice isn’t just a vice of journalists”, writes ex-journalist SiobhanFTB on Twitter. Instead of “Rents have gone up”, the more integral suggestion is “Landlords raised rent”. Instead of “Hospitals are understaffed”, reporters would best write “Hospitals understaffed their sites”. And so on, and so forth. The many ways in which reporting language absolves powerful figures and authorities of responsibility calls into question the true responsibility of journalists.

Kovach and Rosenstiel (2007) state the social purpose of journalism as being “to provide people with the information they need to be free and self-governing”. Journalists are not only seen as a public good, tasked with loyalty to citizens, to monitor power and to hold responsibility to the authorities and the power structures which affect citizens the most. The American Press Institute (n.d.) outlines that journalists are also intended to report independently from whom or what they cover; remaining reliable and unmotivated by influences of power or self-interest, and clarifies that this does not mean total neutrality on the subject at hand. “The source of their credibility is their accuracy, intellectual fairness and ability to inform – not their devotion to a certain group or outcome”.

Siobhan’s tweet highlights ‘passive voice’ as an irresponsibly used device, and as Tiana Gibbs (2020) writes for Beyond Bylines, passive voice can be wielded appropriately, particularly if the subject carries sensitive information, speculated information, such as reporting on an alleged crime victim or perpetrator. In a newsreel of constant stories about authority figures committing acts that betray their citizens, it is the responsibility of the journalist to report on this, truthfully, for what it is. Yet journalists use passive voice in ways that absolve authorities or culpable figures of their role in a situation – at best, this can be put down to failure, but at worst, this can besuspected of carrying an underlying agenda, in favour or defense of the culpable.

The concentration of media ownership – labelled as ‘media consolidation’ – raises concern for the state of freedom of the press, given the decreasing number of individuals or organisations controlling shares of the mass media. Critics of market concentration suggest that this must be closely monitored in order to uphold professional journalism as ‘one of the cornerstones of professional democracy’, keeping it a free, independent medium with no suspicious agenda (Von Dohnanyi, 2003). It must be questioned whether the platforms reporting with ‘passive voice’ are suggesting influence or bias towards authority, betraying the very role of professional journalism in the first place. Dr. Alecia Swasy reported on the new phenomenon of social media users now being able to influence the agenda of media, and perhaps responsibility also lies on us to demand this from journalists and their platforms.

In a current world of ill-treated hospital workers, racially motivated violence from police and landlords exploiting their tenants, it remains vital that journalists understand their role for citizenship; to hold authorities responsible and remain unfazed by their influence; to raise the peoples’ consciousness of their own citizenship and to ensure that those in power are scrutinised for their actions. Journalist outlets are at risk of this influence, and Siobhan’s tweet remains correct – that journalists must forgo passive voice in situations where authorities play an active role of culpability, and we should also reciprocate this responsibility and use our voice to demand this integrity from journalists. If citizens are to be provided with information that allows their self-governance, then journalists must take responsibility and report the non-neutral facts.