[QUOTE=Martha]
Consider the following sample headlines:
**Arrest three men at airport **(meaning “Three men arrested at airport”)
**Discover new species of snake **(meaning “New snake species discovered”)
I know that writers are told to avoid the passive voice as much as possible, but isn’t the former construction in each of the two examples just plain wrong?
I made this observation about some headlines written like this and the person responsible said it was a US-style construction, commonly used in US tabloid headlines. He implied that because I speak and write British English it was simply a case of different conventions.
I think he is BSing me to avoid admitting that his written English leaves a lot to be desired.
In case I’m being too cocky here, please tell me - is this, or was this ever an accepted headline writing convention in the US press?
[/QUOTE]
Martha, whoever this is that you’re working with, he’s wrong, because these headlines are incorrect regarding agency. And not only is he wrong, but he’s an idiot for saying that these were “US-style” constuctions. First of all, this isn’t a matter of construction. Secondly, good English uses the passive voice whenever it’s necessary or advisable.
If an unidentified person attacks the mayor in a deli, you say: “Mayor Attacked in Delicatessen.” You DON’T say: “Someone Attacked the Mayor in a Delicatessen,” at least not for a headline. The reason is obvious: the mayor is presumably more important/more well-known than the anonymous attacker.
OTOH, if George W. Bush attacked a member of the press corps in a deli, you might say: “Bush Attacks Foreign Correpesponent in Delicatessen,” or something like that.
You are not being too cocky, Martha, not at all. This guy should be fired. His headlines are not just bad jouralism; they’re simply not English–they’re not grammatical. And if they do fire him, I’d gladly take his place. Consider me a candidate for his position.