If there's one thing I can't stand, it's the use of the word "seen" in headlines. Why use this ridiculous addition when it can just as easily be omitted? Add the phrase "are said" to the list, too.
I can understand the need to express hesitation or doubt. That's what "might" or "may be" are for. "Is seen" just sounds stupid. What's worse is when news anchors start saying it.
Have you ever seen a blog use such a construction?
It strikes me as a method of "passing the buck" of responsibility for making the judgment that the headline asserts.
"Bill to Overhaul System of Voting is in Danger" carries two messages that the Times might not want to give. The first is that the Times is making an independent judgment about whether the bill is in danger, and it might not want to lay claim to that. It only wants to say, "some people think it's in danger." The second is that it might not want to give the impression that the Times cares one way or the other what happens to the bill. By pushing the statement into a sort of third-person sense, perhaps the headline tries to retain the impression of impartiality.
It's still horrible English.
I've never seen a blog use that kind of construction, but blogwriters generally don't pretend to be impartial and acknowledge that what they write is based on their own judgments.
© 2002, 2003