This week Daniel Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins, tried to calm the masses here in DC by offering an apology for the dismal performance of the team this year.
But did he really apologize?
Snyder said he was apologetic. But he never apologized. And that is the difference between direct discourse and evasive language. He described his state of mind using an adjective, but we never actually saw him commit an action.
This is what Snyder said:
"And I think we have an opportunity the rest of the season to hopefully get it going. But to date, we've let everyone down -- including ourselves. We know that. We're just apologetic."
Look at the final sentence: "We are just apologetic." What Snyder is describing is not an action but a static state of being. In other words, there is nothing active in what he is doing--he just is. Good writers know to avoid the weak to be verb (am, is, are, was, were). Instead, they use concrete, workhorse verbs that vividly describe an action. The to be verbs, on the other hand, are neither actionable nor tangible.
It's much better to use a verb that you can picture happening. I can't picture someone in a state of apology, but I can picture someone apologizing. Had Snyder said, "We apologize," it would have been much more direct.
But Snyder did not want to be direct. He did not want to be vivid. Instead, he wanted to be evasive and vague, and he certainly was not willing to be humble and contrite. Standing in front the cameras, had he said, "We apologize," Snyder would have displayed a deliberate, tangible action. Instead, he used language that merely described an intangible and internal state that's impossible to witness. I give Snyder credit for his deft use of the language.
While this is not an example of passive voice, it is an example of one way persuasive writers can minimize responsibility if it's something they need to do.
Comments