I mean. “she was killed by the IDF” is passive voice, no? I think IDF is out of control as much as the next person but passive voice can be communicative and clear as much as active voice. And clearly it’s easy to reach for if you gave it as a counter example accidentally.
The problem is not that they use the passive voice, it’s that they use the passive voice systematically for one side and the active for the other. It’s always “Hamas kills” versus “shot dead by the IDF”, and usually the “by the IDF” part is buried in the article instead of the headline.
Normally you’d say she was killed by the IDF, or Israel shot and killed an American.
Instead the media makes strong use of passive voice:
I mean. “she was killed by the IDF” is passive voice, no? I think IDF is out of control as much as the next person but passive voice can be communicative and clear as much as active voice. And clearly it’s easy to reach for if you gave it as a counter example accidentally.
The problem is not that they use the passive voice, it’s that they use the passive voice systematically for one side and the active for the other. It’s always “Hamas kills” versus “shot dead by the IDF”, and usually the “by the IDF” part is buried in the article instead of the headline.
I’ve seen reports that just say someone “dies” instead of that the IDF killed them.