I listened to that KPCC show; thanks for the link! Here's my reaction (they take, but don't post comments over there):

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, explains, 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.

Thanks for the clarification.

I didn't see this,

The reason torture isn't settled for organizations like NPR and Fox News, et al is because Obama has failed to lead on this subject. And in fact I would claim he has mostly done things to undermine and muddy up the discussion of this issue and block investigations of it. (@ 9:26 & 10:24 am)

in this,

The reason it is important for NPR and others to refer to these practices as "enhanced interrogation techniques" is because this doesn't mean any crimes were committed. Once you label the same torture, then it becomes a war crime and one that mandates investigations and prosecutions. (@ 8:13 am)

Taken together, your point is much more easily understood. And, I agree with it.

Thanks, but I deserve little credit.

"Wurdz" was a spelling suggested by Noah Webster back when he first started making dictionaries, because he felt that the USA should "claim its own language" in an effort to cut ties with England.

His thinking was that ceasing to use "proper" British spelling for words and coining new "American" spellings would function as a lasting "fuck you" to the guys we'd revolted against.

No kiddin.

I like to use his spellings from time to time when dealing with cases of American exceptionalism. Seems fitting somehow.

I just finished listening to Pat Morrison discussing The T Word with Ms Shepard and Geoff Nunberg, as linked by anwaya earlier, and I am struck by how truly dull Shepard is in these exchanges.

"Dull" as in "Not the sharpest tool in the shed." She tends to babble randomly, touching on extraneous matters or garbling talking points or mashing disparate issues together. It takes a great deal of effort to parse out what she's trying to say. And the listener can't be altogether sure she knows what she is saying or if she believes it.

I had the feeling listening to her just now that she was drunk, or I was. It was that incoherent.

But some points: mention was made of the fact that NPR is right in line with mainstream American media, which I've pointed out all use the same locutions and euphemisms in the same way to describe what's done to captives under American control or by American allies. NPR is no outlier in this respect.

Nunberg pointed out that the American media is the outlier, given that the rest of the world has no problem calling torture torture (I would say he's not correct, given that the BBC won't do it...). Morrison brought up an NPR report from (apparently) 2007, in which there was no problem referring to what Iraqis did to Iranian prisoners as torture, which Shepard sidestepped for some reason. The point was that what it's called depends on who's doing what to whom.

Shepard repeatedly said that NPR's policy on the use of the term 'torture' was only promulgated in April, 2009, in response to the release of the Torture Memos. Nonsense, I say. The policy with regard to the use of the term "torture" in the context of American actions has been in effect for years.

A caller brought up the fact that by not using the term "torture", NPR was validating Bush official policy.

This is the dreaded Taking Sides.

And Shepard agrees.

Nunberg tended to be... how do you say... "passionate" whereas Shepard used her best lulling voice. All civil enough.

But meant, primarily, to defuse the controversy.

So if Glenn had been able to get her on Salon Radio, would it have been any different? From what I could gather, Shepard is really quite bored by this whole discussion, thinks it really isn't her job to deal with it... and probably just wants another gimlet.

No?

...Now, I'll concede that euphemisms can be used to manipulate ideas and opinion [and as an aside I'll note that it's never anyone in this thread that seems to be taken in by those euphemisms...] but in any event they're not the primary or even the secondary tool. I would, however, say that that usually happens when there's little free press - not a problem in the US surely? If this were Iran, I might care a bit more. - homeruk [emphasis mine]

We aren't sure it is a free press in any meaningful use of the term. Is there a difference between a state owned press and a corporately owned press, where corporate concerns are given precedence like the state's concerns are? Or, where corporate interests collide with the reader's interest, and the reader's interest is set aside?

By the way, you really personalized that quote from Orwell. It's fine with me if Orwell doesn't cut it for you. I wasn't, specifically, directing that quote to you. I rather thought your quote was a nice illustration of Orwell's point. I'm drifting to align with Eris, Paul Daniel and Mike. I no longer alternate between wondering whether you are a determined Obama supporter or a concern troll. Now, I tentatively wonder who in the UK goes 'down' for torture if anyone in the Bush Crime Family goes 'up' on charges here. And, who, or what, that person is to you.