Thanks again Glenn for shining a spotlight on the national embarassment that is our media. This is by far my favorite thing to watch you do.

Its been obvious to me for quite some time now that omsbudsmen are chosen for their ability to support the status quo, despite any mission statement to the contrary. Ask Froomkin what happens when you rock the boat too much in terms of spotlighting the hypocricy and incompetence of our press.

This woman rose to the ranks of ombudsman of NPR not because of her stupidity (though a lack of self awareness can't have hurt) but rather her ability to assuage the egos of those in power.

In short, she's a hack. Kudos to you for exposing her as such.

Anna Tauzin, intern in the Ombudsman's office who wrote today's entry concerning anonymity online, wrote in the comments section to her own posting that she expects Shepard to post a follow-up to her torture entry this afternoon.

http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/06/anonymity_online_behind_the_ma.html#commentBlock

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

You need to read the essay linked at my sig if you really believe the above. It is entitled "Taking a Break from Euphemisms". An excerpt:

In point of fact, euphemism, as a form of metaphor, is a mechanism for understanding the world. Internally, our mind insulates itself from pain by digesting it, by finding comparisons and analogies that help to put the painful situation into a context of less painful experiences. Were this never to happen, or were our experiences to be so painfully different from all that we have as experience elsewise, we'd all be walking around with PTSD.

But it is quite another thing to insulate ourselves from painful experiences that are not our own, and still another to insulate the public from painful experiences that one is delegating to others to commit on those whom the public shall never see...

Torture is not supposed to exist. Its victims can never be insulated from its effects, torture victims have been studied who are still in physical and emotional pain 40 years after the event. And because it is not supposed to exist, euphemisms for it, expressions like enhanced interrogation, meant to dull the public sensibilities, are not supposed to exist, either.

I find it interesting that you deny the power of words. If language, and images, were not powerful, then the powerful in society would not seek to contol them as much as they so evidently do.

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. I am not sure if a few hours of sleep deprivation constitute torture or how much sleep deprivation would become torture. But it is clear to me collectively torture was being committed and still is being committed on detainees in our custody and the custody of other countries we have made arrangements with to hold these detainees. If NPR were being honest, which they aren't, they would not exclude the word torture from their labeling of these practices.

If this doesn't convince everyone still defending Obama for adopting similar policies as Bush on indefinite detention... I would politely suggest you move to another country - one with a banana republic legal system that best suits what you believe in.

But if a banana republic suits them, why would they have to move? Besides, have you seen what U-Haul is charging these days?

Simply because this one of my pet peeves, I wish you would write about this topic every other day. NPR is clearly trying to make this go away.

The problem is, they really didn't have to respond to the criticisms at all. If you listen to NPR regularly, they often make mistakes in their reporting, some deliberate, some not. And some of the mistakes are addresses, and others never are addressed.

In this case, I think the decision by the CIA, er, NPR management, was to say something concrete through the "ombudsman" which basically told their critics to go to hell.

So now, NPR is not only one of the major establishment propaganda outlets, they're getting pretty nasty defending their role.

A little disappointed though; I was hoping she'd have a high funny voice like Brad Schlossman.

Not a chance. Mike Sulzer nailed it:

AS speaks with what I call the NPR "sound".

I think Teh Voice is the first test NPR applies when hiring. That dulcet, soothing, somnolence-inducing tone that makes it hard to believe the words you are actually hearing at times.

It's worked remarkably well during the gradual cooptation and evolution of NPR from something which used to have value to 'Nother Propaganda Retailer for the Powers That Be.

...of the American public. With this kind of waffling approach to torture, it feeds into the larger problem of the public becoming complacent about the things that the government does in their name. She also seems to think that "journalism" means bending over backward to accommodate any point of view, even if it is one that has been discredited by more than one outlet. Bob Garfield points out that several international organizations have ruled it torture, and the U.S. Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishments, so if NPR is really reporting the news, they would be able identify the conduct by the CIA, Bush administration (and continuing in the Obama administration) is that of torture. But Shepard justifies the NPR stance with the fact that the perpetrators of torture still have a "side" that needs to be heard.

In her blog post, she also seems to differentiate between waterboarding and humiliation: "Also, not all interrogation could be classified as torture. Sleep deprivation, nudity and facial slaps are different from, say, pouring water on a cloth over someone's face for 20 to 40 seconds to create the sensation of drowning - a practice known as waterboarding." This point really bothers me, because she seems to think that it can be ok to humiliate detainees, even though those tactics have been largely disregarded as useful in gaining information.

Thank you Glenn for pointing out how important this issue is.