What Journalists Should Know About the “Past Exonerative” Tense
The use of the past exonerative tense in headlines and news reporting has been a topic of debate in the journalism industry. An example of the exonerative tense would be addressing the murder of a civilian by a police officer with the following language: A Civilian Was Murdered. The exonerative exonerates the police officer by not mentioning them, and puts the murder of the civilian in passive voice. The issue was recently highlighted in an article by BuzzFeed News, (one of their final articles, in fact) which argued that the use of such language can be misleading and harmful to communities.
This language is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, it completely destroys the injustice present in the action it is describing: by saying a civilian was killed without mentioning by whom, it makes the incident sound like a tragic accident rather than a murder. Similarly to saying “mistakes were made” instead of “X person made a mistake that affected Y person,” the language absolves any parties of any wrongdoing. Using the past exonerative tense in such situations can downplay the seriousness of the investigation and create a false impression of the situation. Some news sources, such as Fox News, are more guilty than others of making a habit of using the past exonerative when it comes to issues with the police, with January 6th rioters, or with Republican lawmakers.
The past exonerative tense can contribute to the erasure of the experiences and perspectives of those who are impacted by a particular event or incident. The communities impacted constantly by police violence are one such community who sees their entire experience with the oppression by the police ignored and even encouraged by lawmakers: use of unclear, exonerative language may also contribute to these communities distrusting journalists. Worse yet, this behavior means the journalists are further reinforcing systems of oppression and white supremacy by normalizing the exclusion of marginalized voices from the public discourse—something that very clearly undermines the goals and the truth-telling nature of journalism.
Lastly, the use of the past exonerative tense can contribute to a broader culture of impunity within law enforcement and other institutions. When headlines emphasize exoneration over accountability, it can send a message that law enforcement officers are not held to the same standards as other citizens, which can further empower or engender violence and lead to discussions in other, wealthier or less-impacted communities about how oppressed communities “deserve it,” a common talking point for anti-Black Lives Matter rhetoric. This can further perpetuate the systemic issues that lead to incidents of police brutality, racial profiling, and other forms of harm that disproportionately impact communities of color. It can also lead to violence perpetrated by individual actors of white communities against communities of color, such as vandalism, assault, and even murder—which will then be reported on exoneratively, which will continue the cycle.
Instead of adopting the neutral passive voice favored by politicians, journalists must instead be brave enough to use direct, present, and active language to point out systemic inequality and the atrocities perpetrated by it and acquiesced to by the general public. If the journalist perpetuates these problems by sticking to an exonerative, passive, weak title or weak reporting, the journalist themselves becomes a perpetrator of violence against oppressed communities. We must take action to hold journalists to a high standard of reporting, for the sake of people who will otherwise suffer in silence.
