Glenn,

The one point I think you miss here is the utter moral vapidity of their claim that they won't call it "torture" because they don't want to "take sides" on a matter of controversy. The simple fact of the matter is that by using Bush's terms ("enhanced interrogation techniques," etc.) rather than "torture" they are in fact taking sides. They are taking Bush's side. This is about as clear-cut an example of taking sides as one can imagine. Not taking sides would involve something like "methods the Administration calls 'enhanced interrogation techniques' but its critics call 'torture.'" Keep up the great work!

-- Joel

One consequence to the Rob Corddry approach to journalism is the utter credulousness that comes with it. In her "reply", Sheppard writes:

"But no matter how many distinguished groups -- the International Red Cross, the U.N. High Commissioners -- say waterboarding is torture, there are responsible people who say it is not. Former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney, their staff and their supporters obviously believed that waterboarding terrorism suspects was necessary to protect the nation's security." (emphasis added)

I don't see anything obvious about it. I think there's a strong case to be made that much of the decisions to waterboard came about as [desperate] attempts to establish a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Quaeda after traditional interrogation techniques failed to yield any such evidence (though after yielding actual and useful intelligence). And I don't think it's at all obvious that Bush/Cheney supporters thought torture necessary to protect the nation. I think there was a lot of anger and revenge and fear and a desire to dehumanize detainees, many of whom clearly had nothing to do with terrorism and despite the likelihood that torture would increase the number and gravity of threats to the nation.

She's a shite journalist, plain and simple.

Glenn,

I think peakdavid has the answer to why you can't get that interview. If WaPoo can charge lobbyists for access to their reporters, shouldn't NPR charge you for access to the person with the vital information on NPR's role in government propaganda about torture? After all, they can't just give away access to someone who dishes diatribes...

...you're entitled to your own opinion, but NOT your own facts.

so glad we've gotten past THAT foolish fixation on accuracy and truth. this metarelativistic approach has certainly advanced public discourse and policy, don't you think? or don't you?

the sun rises in the east: debate among yourselves.

For the record, I have brought this issue and the volume of comments to the attention of NPR's top editorial staff."

Oh, the mind-fuck that is American media! Because it actually seems to be the other way around--not that Shepard brought the issue to the attention of NPR, but that NPR brought the issue up with her. I think that's far more indicative of how little these "ombudsman" creatures really do exist out of the continuum of the editorial board. They remind me more of customer service at a bank, where, as they tell you that they can't reverse your overdraft fee of 33 dollars for a fifty cent overdraft, they make a point to ask you if they've been as helpful as they could be; I mean, come on, O'Reilly has an "ombudsman" on his show. The reality seems to be NPR playing damage control to reign back in their audience--which I assume reads the HuffPo and GG at a rate far above the average.

In any event, this shows just how effective Glenn's column continues to be in creating ripples with wide-reaching effect. As for Talk of the Nation, I hope that show is deluged with calls--Neil Conan, the host, plays nothing more than a massage therapist to the conservative guests they have on there. I remember specifically that the show had Ralph Reed--Jack Abramoff co-conspirator and enabler of violence against abortion clinics--to talk about the power of political youth movements. Absolutely no mention was made of his checkered career.

NPR reported this morning that a US soldier has been captured by "insurgents" in Afghanistan.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106195429

Suppose he is exposed to some of the same treatment the US has inflicted on detainees - sleep deprivation, isolation, enforced nudity, exposure to temperature extremes, forced standing, stress positions, even the waterboard - will they call that "torture"?

I laughed out loud when I read those paragraphs you said were from Politico. I assumed it was satire from The Onion and that your link would take me there.

I was astonished to find out that this cash for access scheme is true, and not satire.

Unbelievable! Have the people at WaPo no shame? Scratch that, we already know the answer to that one.

That this is going on in broad daylight, with no attempt at secrecy, is further evidence of how sick our media culture has become. Just when I think I am beyond being shocked, something like this happens that proves the Beltway Club has sunk to even lower depths, and I am amazed all over again. There are no words left to describe this rot.

If as Jim Lehrer says, "There’s always a germ of truth in just about everything . . ." (yeah, he qualifies it, I know, "just about everything").

And Shepard says, "there are two sides to the issue. And I'm not sure, why is it so important to call something torture?"

Why not pursue that line of flawed reasoning and call into question the meaning of what one might call "death" especially as it pertains to those individuals who ostensibly died while being "tortured" (or from another perspective, "enhancedly interrogated")?

Because really, what is "death"?

Corddry: Whoa-ho! Sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! Listen, buddy: Not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.

Now the people who want to talk can directly talk via blogs, youtube, twitter to the people who want to listen. Obama's campaign illustrated that. The middleman who refuses to add value is increasingly irrelevant.