I agree with you about Neal Conan. He regularly features a Who's Who's list of washed-up neoconservatives on his show. William Kristol has been on many times. He regularly has Douglas Feith on his show to give his opinions on American foreign policy. He's introduced respectfully as a distinguished scholar and all-around terrific guy. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

This whole torture debate has me stunned. I never imagined this country could be divided over something as clear cut as waterboarding = torture. America's decline as a decent society continues, and it's sad to behold.

Just a punctuational quibble: Mr. Greenwald is a government-torturer, and blessings be upon him for it. Torturers in the employ of the government are government torturers.

Jim Crutchfield

Long Island City, NY

Shepard's blog statement is a catalogue of non sequiturs, oxymorons and contradictions (wait a minute. her "blog?" You mean, SHE'S a diatribist, too???). She doesn't believe NPR should use the term "enhanced interrogation" but somehow her defending that practice doesn't automatically make her a shill, which she assures us she isn't.

One barely needs to comment on a sentence containing both the words "bush/cheney" and "responsible." and finally, whether they thought waterboarding was necessary to protect the country (which is BS anyway, but let it stand for a moment) is irrelevant to the question of whether we call it torture.

Still, my feeling is that it's just a bad week for Shephard. When the crunch comes, my prediction is that Bob Garfield will be Froomkinned while Shepherd finds herself promoted to upper management. You wait and see.

"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."

Suppose Bush, Cheney, their staff and supporters believe assassinations of political leaders around the world is necessary to protect the nation's security. Does assassination then become "accelerated graveyard delivery" simply because some political factions say so?

Using the same standards, there was no Watergate burglary. There certainly was no Clinton lies, only contrafactual statements. Oh wait, there were Clinton lies. The media can decide on occasion.

the central enabling deceit of the Bush administration was that there are no objective, verifiable standards for what "torture" is. Instead, it's just all in the eye of the beholder... -- GG

Actually, given the sycophancy of all the Jim Lehrers of our modern press -- whose core notion of journalism centers around groveling for "access" -- wouldn't it be more accurate, Glenn, to say that it's all in the eye of the "beholden"?

How long has this been going on?

I first noticed it myself when I used to listen to Al Franken's show religiously. He had these interns on who did this incredible due diligence, so that all his statements were backed up by research.

Then I'm having a discussion one day with my republican sister and she starts comparing Franken to Limbaugh. How they are both incendiary, mean, and twist facts to prove their case.

I began to notice these comparisons occurring quite frequently in the media, where one side, let's say Richard Clarke's would be presented vs Karl Rove's side. Both given equal time and equal validity.

I think the problem is with the listener. When I hear something, regardless of who it is from, I check it out. Most people are too lazy to do this, they trust that since the media is giving them two sides, both sides must be viable.

In this day and age, when we are all just few keystrokes away from fact checking, there is no excuse to listen to these bobbleheads and take what they say as gospel.

Keep it up Mr. G, an island in a sea of insanity.

A comment in reply to Alicia Shepard's blog (sic) post hits home one of my points:

Caitlin Fitzsimmons (Niltiac) wrote:

I both agree and disagree. You make some valid points but I don't agree with the conclusions you've drawn.

You say that if you hear the word "torture", you want to know what is meant by that. I agree. But the description of the type of torture should be AS WELL AS, not instead of the word.

The dictionary definition of torture is:

noun

"the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain."

or

verb

"inflict severe pain on"

Presumably there is a specific legal definition as well.

"Torture" carries negative connotations because many people think it's a bad thing, not because it's a loaded term. It's actually just a statement of fact.

Would you say that "murder" was a loaded term and we should instead describe in detail HOW someone was killed? I would use the word "murder" rather than describing how "he stabbed her with a knife, puncturing her stomach, until she slowly bled to death". Perhaps I might mention that it was a stab wound to the stomach, but I would ALSO use the word murder (or alleged murder, if it's before the courts).

Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:55:19 AM

Shephard (1) misses the point in that many uses of the euphemisms come in contexts where an extended analysis are not possible (2) fails to underline it is not either/or. Also, she insists she is against the use of 'euphemisms,' but though she references that claim, the tenor of her comments do not tend to highlight that. They instead support a path that furthers euphemisms or worse, he/she said journalism that robs words of any real objective meaning. Which is if anything worse.

It's clear that the NPR ombudsman doesn't have the intellectual wattage for her job, or any understanding of journalistic ethics. She should be representing these criticisms more strongly, on behalf of readers, to NPR, adding her own critique and oversight, if she were capable.

That said, the actual use of deceitful euphemisms is an NPR editorial decision: it really isn't up to the ombudsman to change the policy--just to offer critique and reader voices. By letting their ombudsman carry the water, appearing (lamely) on their own programs, they are really just deflecting questions that should be answered by the editors.

If the ombudsman won't be responsive and isn't standing up for, apparently, the readers OR NPR (offering her own apologetics rather than advancing a stern critique and reporting the answer she gets, as is normal), then she should simply be bypassed. Take this to the NPR brass.