I stopped listening to NPR years ago. And now I see that continuing to avoid it is the correct choice.

Someone need to inform this spineless twit what an Ombudsman is supposed to do.

Wait, better yet, fire this slimy corporate hack. The fact that NPR continues to employ her in such a critical role really pisses all over what NPR used to stand for.

The reason for using euphemistic language is to avoid triggering strong emotional associations. Sometimes there's a "good" reason to do so: to get people to think about a topic rather then simply react to the words.

But the Shepard case isn't an example of that.

This Taibbi piece explains the purpose:"taking controversial and explosive topics and trying to help rattled readers somehow navigate their way through them to yawns, lower heart rates, and states of benign unconcern."

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/06/24/fareed-zakarias-manifesto/

Something Stinks is a "birther", a GWB fan, and defends Rush Limbaugh from criticism. So while he (?) criticizes both Republicans and Democrats, he is very lopsided in his vehemence and is extremely susceptible to Republican talking points.

Don't mistake SS for being balanced, in any sense of the word.

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? -- Alicia Shepard

Um, yes. So: human beings, innocent 'til proven guilty... in cages ... physically, emotionally, and psychologically abused... subjected to extreme humiliation, degradation, and physical pain. That's the CONTEXT. One that warrants calling torture by, you know, its actual name.

And so, the one point I hope I made strongly was just stop characterizing things, just describe what they are.

How does she propose to "describe" things without the use of nouns? It can't be done. The only issue is whether one's use of nouns is accurate, precise, and honest -- or evasive and disingenuous. Does she honestly believe that employing euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" is not itself an act of "characterization"?

Accepting the notion that this woman is an ombudsman requires an enhanced undifferentiation technique.

At my local NPR station, and no doubt many others, last week saw an ongoing pledge drive.

What a coincidence that she waited until after the pledge drive was over to refuse.

In the interview she claims that the reason why NPR cannot bring itself to use the word torture (when referring to waterboarding) is that the cataloging of such technique a "hotly debated issue".

Really? Let's see now. On one side of the spectrum we have a handful of culprits from the Bush administration and their minions, and on the other, the entire world.

What prism does one have to use to consider this a "hotly debated issue"?

This woman needs to be let go. Oh wait, we don't want to offend sensitivities here: let's just say that she needs to be put on permanent unpaid leave.

Having just listened to the radio interview she did give, why would she talk to you and get eviscerated? I would be ashamed if I was one of her professors listening to this.

She's so full of it...she says the media doesn't need to take on positions, then does so in the next sentence. She can't defend her viewpoint, and she knows it.

Disgusting. She should be fired.

Screw her.

“The media is really conservative, not liberal” spin now-a-days. The corporate media is neither liberal or conservative but is reflexively pro establishment and pro State.

The primary goal of any established elite is the maintenance of the status quo. Any real change is therefore a threat that must be minimized. So we end up with socialist programs that cannot be dismantled -Bush's attempt at Social Security “reform”, nor expanded -the current “medicare for all” non-event, lying side by side with the total lack of action to change anything about a financial system that has steered tens of trillions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of a few corporate freebooters. The spin is neither of the left nor the right but more of the same and don't rock the boat. The real division is that of the looter and the looted.

I guess that falls in to the whole idea of those "shrill" leftist radicals like Glenn shrieking about such an "out there" concept of following our own laws. Maybe it is a compliment though, as the written words apparently shouted at her that she is dead wrong on this.

If labels matter so little we wonder why some folks are so eager to dismiss or avoid them.

So true. I couldn't help but notice people like Shepard try to downplay the significance of language --

And I'm not sure, why is it so important to call something torture?

while defending the importance of the medias responsibility to carefully use "impartial" language --

..calling waterboarding torture is tantamount to taking sides

to describe controversial issues.

Whats amazing here is that she employs misleading language even in her excuses. Classic doublespeak as described by Orwell. Responsible journalists don't take sides, yet she adopts the Bush admin's rhetoric. What you call something isn't important, yet calling something by its true name is a violation of proper journalistic conduct.

If it's really so unimportant to call torture for what it is, then shouldn't it be equally unimportant to find friendly labels for it? She would be hard pressed to make a more intellectually dishonest argument than this.

Torture euphemisms are just one of the right wing's successful assaults on language and thought. Anti-abortion is pro-life. Estate taxes are death taxes. Torture is tough questioning.

The idea is so simple: everyone on your team calls the issue a different name than everyone else. If you can get enough people using your new name, objective debate becomes impossible because critics are forced to be seen taking sides when they choose which name to use.

Even if a journalist tries for balance by using both names, the cause of the right is advanced because their fake name is legitimized. Using both names also cues the audience to identify with their team's language and their team's position before they have a chance to think about the issue.

With right wing dominance of radio and TV, media of the spoken word, fake vocabulary is a devastatingly effective weapon. It is a weapon of distortion by its very nature, and so the intellectually honest are loath to use it to fight back.