I have been under the misapprehension that the "passive voice" meant rearranging a sentence to sound less "active," particularly when describing something that could be taken as controversial.
Therefore, instead of saying "John McCain got in a public argument with Ron Paul," the author writes "an argument flared up between John McCain and Ron Paul." As if John McCain and Ron Paul were both going about their daily doings, and then all of a sudden this big ol' argument just somehow flared up between them. "Where'd that come from?" McCain asked. "I don't know but I wish it'd go away," Paul sighed.
I guess I thought that the term "passive voice" described a a writers mannerism which I find annoying, when in fact it describes something else. Thanks for enlightening me.
Mistakes were made by zombies. The sentence makes sense and it is passive voice.
I made mistakes by zombies. This does not make sense and is therefore active voice.
In passive voice, the subject is what is acted upon by the verb. In active voice, the direct object is what receives the action. While some disdain the use of passive voice, especially in formal reports such as theses, passive voice is a good tool when desiring to keep a certain subject as the primary focus of the writing.