Calling a Spade a Spade: Use of the Word "Torture"

I'm becoming confused at what Ms. Shepard believes her role to be.

She first says that "as the ombudsman my role is to be independent of NPR and to be a representative for the listener." It should be clear from all the comment threads on this issue, on Ms. Shepard's blog and elsewhere, that we, the listeners of NPR, overwhelmingly reject NPR's policy of refusing to call torture by its proper name. So it would seem that Ms. Shepard's job would be to communicate to NPR in no uncertain terms that its listeners find its editorial policy inaccurate, immoral, and a dereliction of journalistic duty.

Of course, that hasn't been Ms. Shepard's role in this controversy at all.

Her next description of her job in this interview contradicts the first one, but at least comes closer to describing her behavior: "it's not my job to defend NPR; it's my job to explain NPR."

Ms. Shepard then entered one of her by now familiar "explanations" of NPR, using the word "we" throughout (what happened to the ombudsman's independence from NPR?). Typical of her explanations, Shepard describes what is simply a matter of fact--what legally constitutes torture--as a matter of controversy, and then defends, excuse me, <i>explains</i>, NPR's policy of using the language of one "side" (the Bush administration) in this (non) controversy as an example of its refusing to take sides.

Given Ms. Shepard's refusal to represent the view of listeners here, and her insistence on referring to the network from which she is supposedly independent as "we," I can't help but conclude that her "explanations" are in fact "defenses." And a person whose duties are to defend a network to its listeners is not an ombudsman, but a spokesperson.

I'll let NPR decide for itself if it could use a more effective spokesperson than Ms. Shepard. But as a listener, I know that we could use a more effective ombudsman.

Verbs, adverbs and adjectives, who needs 'em? Newspeak!

From the ombudsman's perspective, responsible journalism in Nazi Germany would've been to praise Hitler and his great mission.

I've never heard this show before, I got there via a link from Salon magazine, but you're definitely on my podcast list.
Ms. Shepard would do Wells proud.

Interesting to hear Ms. Shepard talk about NPR's "no-win situation" here. The problem seems to be that if NPR calls it torture, some people will be mad at them, and if they call it "harsh interrogation techniques," other people will be mad at them. How rough for them! Obviously they have chosen not to offending the "it's not torture" crowd, while wishing the rest of us would feel sorry for their difficult choice.

Shepard keeps saying NPR hasn't taken a side, but if that were really true, they wouldn't be in a "no-win situation," would they? Of course they have taken a side.

I am not Patt Morrison's biggest fan, but between this piece and the later interview this week with Dan Choi, she's done herself proud. Bringing Geoffrey Nunberg into this discussion was a journalistic masterstroke.

Finally, right at the end of the interview, Ms Shepard said something which I agree. She should not be in the position to defend NPR policy. The response to this issue is overwhelming. It would be irresponsible for the policy makers at NPR to ignore the listener or continue to hide behind the ombudsman.

Indeed, the use/non use of the "T-word" misses the point.

I need a "60 Minutes" style in-depth report on the issue of torture conducted by my government! If the Prez will not investigate, if congress sidesteps, if the public is too apathetic, what then is the role of the journalist? I need just one main stream media outlet to devote one hour to this issue. May I suggest a script:

- present the time-line
- introduce the characters
- give some US historical background, i.e., Gen George Washington
- discuss the implications of torture
-- National security
-- the Armed Forces
-- overall strategy in the "War on Terror"
- How has this question of torture helped / not helped the USA
- Is torture ever justified?
- finish up with a straight forward commentary and you're done

Journalism cannot be the lazy profession Ms Shepard knows and loves. Where to get along, you go along. An irrelevant whitewash of noise on the TV / radio / newspaper. True journalism is Mike Wallace asking the loaded question, making the guilty sweat, getting a confession, all on camera of course.

Come on NPR. You can do it. Make me proud to be a support of public radio.

Oh my god!

I think the kindest way to view Alicia Shepard's comments here (and in her articles online) is to say that her utter failure to be logical or consistent suggests she's feeling cornered, and siege mentality rarely elicits much in the way of coherence.

The least kind way to view it is to say that Alicia Shepard is a liar and a moron.

Of course, both statements could be true.

Shepard has cited a general reluctance of mainstream media to call waterboarding torture, and she's right. But consider this:

The American mainstream media had no problem calling waterboarding (water torture) torture during WWII.

The American mainstream media had no problem calling it torture when North Korea and the Chinese used it during the Korean War.

The American mainstream had no problem calling it torture when the Viet Cong employed it during the Vietnam War.

Even the SERE program, where waterboarding by American hands originated, described it as a type of torture that our troops might encounter if captured.

Yet only now, since 9/11, do the mainstream media have a problem calling it torture. Why?

Shepard says there is another side, another viewpoint on the subject of waterboarding as torture. No there isn't. For decades it was plainly and accurately and universally described as what it was and remains: torture.

For the media to do a 180-degree about-face on this only AFTER Americans begin using the technique is a profound betrayal of the public trust. And it cuts right to the rotten heart of what's wrong with our media and the journalism (such as it is) practiced in the United States.

This is an issue bigger than NPR. But NPR leads the dishonorable pack in offering such a deplorable defense of a deplorable practice.

REPORT THE "CONTROVERSY" OBJECTIVITY = MORAL RELATIVITY TO THE POINT OF MEANINGLESSNESS

For years the tobacco industry funded fraudulent research to make sure there was always a few studies and scientists on the dole who could be called upon to maintain a "controversy" about whether smoking was bad, how bad, addictive, etc.? In recent years the ugly truth has emerged at how fraudulent and bought and sold that research was. The mass media, following a flawed and ultimately false philosophy of objectivity, claims that it takes no sides and reports the various positions exposited.

So, if party A and the vast majority of the world or scientists say it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and therefore is a duck, but party B pays a bunch of 'scientists' (or Quick Boat baloney mongers, or off-the-edge-of-the-right-side-of reality lawyers) to say that's no duck, it's an aardvark, then the story becomes the duck/aardvark controversy for most of the mass media, not: gee, most of the world calls it a duck, and as far as we can see, it's a duck, except for that faction. They have a vested interest in calling it an aardvark.

This is very much about how the mass US media has been cowed and bought into submission on a variety of issues.

What a buffoon. If you use the word TORTURE, that would be a lot more effective than using the term waterboarding.

As for "gathering facts" how about the facts that Japanese soldiers were put to death, US soldiers were put in jail, and US policemen were also jailed for the use of waterboarding prisoners. There was NO DEBATE on whether or not it was torture. Those are facts you seem to have missed gathering.

So much for responsible reporting or "independent representative" for the NPR members. Perhaps SHILL might be a more accurate term but not neutral. But a spade is a spade.

As one caller stated, "NPR's responsibility is to report the truth, moral and ethical." That is responsible journalism. If Ms Shepard does not believe it's her job to defend NPR, why is she doing it?

The reason for the overwhelming objection by the NPR audience IS that they are not hearing responsible journalism. I am amazed she can utter that phrase and still support NPR's policy.

Not calling torture "torture?"

The Kenneth Tomlinson affair certainly seems to have left NPR badly rattled for NPR to still be self-censoring to this shameful extent 3 1/2 years after Tomlinson, a Karl Rover operative, resigned in disgrace.

I don't know which is more ironic - that Mr. Rove is rumored to be teaching a course in an upcoming semester at Georgetown U. entitled "Civility in a Post-Partisan Age," or that Alicia Shepard teaches "Media Ethics" there too.