ALICIA SHEPARD: ... And I'm not sure, why is it so important to call something torture? ... Isn't it the job of the news media to put the facts out there, to give as much detailed information and to put it in context?

Fights over language really only obscure the true fight about the underlying acts or omissions - labels don't help anyone. - homeruk

"Politics and the English Language" (1946) is an essay by George Orwell criticizing "ugly and inaccurate" contemporary written English.

Orwell said that political prose was formed "to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Orwell believed that, because this writing was intended to hide the truth rather than express it, the language used was necessarily vague or meaningless. This unclear prose was a "contagion" which had spread even to those who had no intent to hide the truth, and it concealed a writer's thoughts from himself and others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language

If labels matter so little we wonder why some folks are so eager to dismiss or avoid them. One further wonders if the context so sorely missing isn't the politics of language itself, and the history of, and taboos against, torture. Maybe if we called it what it is rather than its euphemism, there would be some political energy to seek justice for that kid Bob Herbert was writing about.

Side note: Thanks for the link to the transcript sinjan. Reproduced at sig.

Essentially all mainstream mass media outlets in this country -- as well as many of them, if not most of them, in the rest of the English speaking world -- have adopted the euphemisms for American-sanctioned and conducted torture that are used by NPR.

The deployment of euphemisms, rather than use the term "torture", for the acts of torture employed by the United States Government and its allies and associates in the "War on Terror" is defended by editors, producers, publishers, ombudsfolk, and reporters alike as necessary to preserve "objectivity," so as not to be perceived as ::taking sides:: in the ::debate.::

As many of us -- and Bob Garfield -- point out, however, employing euphemisms for torture is not "objective" at all; it is in fact taking the ::side:: of the Bush administration.

Shepard, for all her apparent slow-wittedness, agrees with Garfield's assessment that that is so: the use of euphemisms is effectively an endorsement of the Bush administration position.

Circling back, let us recall: virtually all American -- and most English language -- mass media news outlets use accepted euphemisms for torture when the acts are sanctioned or conducted by Americans or their allies/associates in the "War On Terror." NPR is no outlier here; it is solidly, rigidly, firmly in the Mainstream of American and other English language "news."

Garfield and Shepard agree that the use of these euphemisms instead of the correct term "torture" is effectively an endorsement of the Bush administration's position on these matters.

So my question now is, "Why does the discredited and out of office Bush administration still have complete control of this issue throughout the American mass media 'news?' What accounts for this inappropriate fealty to a political operation that is no longer in office or in power?"

Anybody?

How many times Bob Garfield managed to use the word "torture" in his NPR interview of an NPR ombudsman on why NPR won't use the word "torture" on NPR?

It was like he was mimicking her; torture, torture, torture.

Classic!

Alicia Shepard:

I totally understand though, that a news organization needs to be as neutral as possible and putting out the facts and letting the audience decide whether it something is good or bad, right or wrong, and so in my opinion as somebody with almost 30 years of journalism experience, it's not the role of the media to take on characterizing things.

There is another organization, cited by Bob Garfield, that has almost 140 years of experience being humanitarian, independent, neutral, and impartial, called the International Committee of the Red Cross (not to mention the High Commissioner for Human Rights and others). By taking the position that the ICRC stance on the matter isn't neutral, as defined by NPR, the NPR ombudsman and staff are, in effect, calling into question the neutrality of that organization, are they not? Are the American news organizations, by virtue of their "journalism experience" more neutral than the world's designated neutral organizations?

National Propaganda Radio needs your support during pledge week.

Call them up and bend their ear. Don't give them any money ever again.

They serve the corporate and fascist interest and not the public interest.

Is Diane Rehm still on? If you are not spouting the Democrat Party Line or the Republican Party Line, she politely rudely cuts you off. Being a gatekeeper is JOB ONE. Don't allow unorthodox views or uncomfortable truths to be aired over the public airwaves. Keep it middle of the road, status quo, either column A or column B, and nothing else.

Black and White. No shades of grey and no color whatsoever.

The news readers voice was nice but they lost me when they reported that tens of thousands of demonstrators were protesting the war when it was actually a half a million when we invaded Iraq. They were only a couple of blocks away so it isn't like they didn't know. They just LIED. Like everyone else in the MSM.

They might as well be Fox.

If Shepard refuses to be interviewed on Salon Radio for fear of a shouting match, perhaps you could instead offer a written exchange via instant messenger.

ALICIA SHEPARD: ... Our language in general is totally evaluative and loaded with meaning, and so whatever someone uses, if someone else disagrees with it, then that language is wrong.

Yes, Alicia, language does have meaning; both positive and normative. It's often culturally derived. Language that lacks either, or both, is called gibberish and is a condition often experienced by people who don't know the language. The insistent use of euphemisms, where the word itself will do, is intended to do nothing more or less than create a shift in the cultural norms. I ain't buying, Alicia.

Oh, and, if I don't agree with your appellation Ombudsman, then am I free to call you a PR Flack?