Please excuse us while we interrupt our normal punditry for a quick lesson in grammar.
Consider the following sentences: 1) "Tom kicked Bill"; 2) "Bill was kicked by Tom."
Both communicate the same information, but one sentence does it more efficiently and creates a better picture in the reader's mind through the use of an action verb — also known as the active voice.
Good writers employ active voice whenever possible. Writers of every age and skill level can improve their prose by rethinking every passive sentence.
Thus, "His appointment was rescheduled" becomes "The dentist rescheduled his appointment." Or, "He was stunned by the fury of the lion's attack" becomes "The lion's furious attack stunned him."
You get the idea. Direct writing puts the subject first, then the verb, then the object receiving the action. In most instances, writers should use active verbs.
So why do media reporters so often use phrases along the lines of "She was the victim of sexual assault"?
A letter writer posed that question last week, stating: "Instead of treating women like passive statistics (women 'were' assaulted), we should hear how many men did these things to women, and how many men were prosecuted for their behavior. These women were not assaulted by statistics — they were raped by men."
We see truth in that statement, which probably should have ended with the phrase "men raped them" instead of "they were raped by men." For every victim, there is indeed a perpetrator, and passive-voice writing about the victim seems to leave the criminal out of the picture.