The idea that euphemism is a way of manipulating debate is not in any way speculative or controversial. I'm not really sure why you're making this wildly counter-intuitive argument, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

He's the new face of the GOP. A passive aggressive concern troll. First he makes a statement saying words are so important that NPR likely got advice from lawyers to not use the word "torture." He claims to be a lawyer and, when asked to cite exactly how NPR would be legally liable, he ignores the question and completely flip-flops to say words aren't a big deal. ;) The last conversation I remember having with this guy was on the issue of indefinite detentions of people declared "too dangerous to set free and unable to be prosecuted in our courts" by the President. I pointed out that such a program would be unconstitutional, to which he responded with the genius assertion that I was making a "subjective" argument, and needed to give Obama more trust. LOL!

But, I wonder how much of the decrepit state of American political journalism is due to the evisceration of traditional media by macroeconomic forces. In the salad days of robust newspapers (two in most cities), three networks with huge news operations, and well-funded news weekly magazines, you had enormous, growing news organizations always willing to hire good, experienced reporters. That job security gave reporters needed independence, just like life tenure is intended to give federal judges independence. When you are secure that you can earn a living even if you have to quit or get fired, you get a lot more brave.

Today, in the face of internet competition (and unchecked corporate ownership) journalists are being laid off by the thousands. Good journalists are out of work all over the country with no prospects. In this environment, people like Alicia Shepard are probably scared to "rock the boat" by defying management or challenging the establishment political system. These people have children, mortgages, car payments, and see people like Dan Froomkin thrown out of a job for doing real reporting and they are quite rightly scared. This insecurity breeds dependence, fear, and cowardice in the face of your employer.

Once upon a time, the "interpid reporter" stereotype would fight with his editor and defy management to break a story that would rock the nation--Watergate, Pentagon Papers, food quality ('The Jungle', etc.). My memory doesn't go back that far, but I am sure there are countless other examples. If the reporter got fired, he or she could always "go across town" to the competing paper, magazine, or TV network/station, because they were all awash in ad revenues from their media oligopolies and were always hiring.

Today, if a reporter gets fired, he will probably have to get a job at Starbucks start filling out law school applications.

The media has always had sycophants among them, but in today's environment, I can understand the universal cowardice among our nation's journalists, especially political journalists, but it is still deplorable. The state of American journalism today is sick and pathetic, and most reporters left with a job probably have trouble sleeping at night knowing they are betraying their duty as the "Fourth Estate" to make payments on their Infiniti and pay for their kids' texting bills.

I am optimistic, however, that citizen-journalists enabled by the internet are and quickly will fill the void left by the disappearance of responsible, professional media that is not wholly co-opted by the system just so they can keep their house in Arlington, or Fairfax, or wherever.

I used to listen to NPR. They seemed like, by US standards, to be a fairly independant and intelligent news source.

They became hugely popular after 9/11, and it seems like the establishment has being co-opting them since then. Their news parrots all the major media outlets.

I dont bother with them anymore. Its just another voice of the establishment. And at least I dont have to sit through those booooring random stories about some artist and his love for their yukallale or exposes on the myriad of ways to make jam.

Here's my equation: NPR + Juan Williams= no money from me ever again.

It really doesn't matter what you call it. Those who consider it torture will consider it torture whatever it is called. Those who don't won't.

You seem to be saying that people's minds are made up on the issue, and there is absolutely nothing to be gained by further discussion of the issue. There has been significant change in the years since the Abu Ghraib photos have revealed, almost entirely because proponents of the use of torture have removed it from the realm of always-wrong (which it is, like genocide and rape) to sometimes-justifiable. They have done this through the manipulation of language. Did you somehow miss all the "water in the nose" and "fraternity prank" remarks over the last five years?

To those who think that the language enhanced interrogation techniques somehow shroud the actions in legitimacy, I disagree. Whether the actions are considered legitimate is a question of whether the actions are legitimate - not what some random spokesperson of media company decides to call it.

The idea that euphemism is a way of manipulating debate is not in any way speculative or controversial. I'm not really sure why you're making this wildly counter-intuitive argument, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

And I'm sorry, quoting Orwell doesn't cut it for me. I have never understood why the simple quoting of dead (or alive, for that matter) authors lends any credibility to any point.

I don't think Orwell's corpse was used to add credibility to the point, but rather his argument. Are you adding the use of citations to your list of extremely common practices that are somehow useless in debate?

Words don't mean anything ffffffft skallygaping snarglepoop lippy-lappy foo-foo. See?

As to lawyers and language - my experience is that any language can be interpeted in almost any way. That's why any politician's words can be taken completely out of context or parsed to tailor anyone's particular point of view. And that's why the focus on what to call something seems to me to be the least of anyone's worries. For example, would there be a similar outcry over the use of the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques" if that was always preceded by the word "illegal". No, I don't think so.

You didn't answer my question.