Being objective only means that if someone represents a falsehood as fact they not only report that representation as stated but also report that other facts refute the claim. the problem with NPR ET AL is that they refuse to report all of the fact and let the listener decide. The problem is as so often pointed out NPR is denying the facts necessary to make an informed decision. They stop with the he said/she said and deny there is any more.

Virtually ALL US mass media outlets follow the same style manual when it comes to the T-Word and its euphemisms when describing American treatment of "detainees," and virtually ALL of them have no problem calling torture torture when The Enemy does it.

I've wondered for a long time who sent the memo to every single mass media outlet in this Land of the Free, Home of the Brave and who, exactly, enforces this universal employment of euphemism.

Why do all editors, publishers and producers go along with it?

Why will not even one of them break ranks?

Some ::Free Press:: hunh?

[Note: I do not blame the reporters. They are not free to use the terms they believe are correct; their editors/producers will "correct" them if they stray from the stratight and narrow...]

Just in case anyone is interested in our friend calamine's history here, here's a link to his archieves.

http://letters.salon.com/4527f6841368849edf17a810e80345e5/author/

Before he was calamine, however, he went by the handle David Sugarman. His works are here:

http://letters.salon.com/fe8d746e149fce6219f677f8779f9970/author/

As anyone can see, he's a real doozy.

Happy Fourth of July, Sugarman.

Interestingly enough, I find Calmine much less offensive than others here, who skulk around dropping racist innuendo in a school-room contest to see who can get away with saying the most offensive thing allowable under the rules. We're all racist [and other ists to a certain degree, as you noted the other day]. Some people, like Calamine, almost seem to be crying out for help, to be educated--or, at least allow you the opportunity to engage them honestly. Believe it or not, despite the fact that he aims most of his invective in the direction of my people, the offense wore off pretty quickly when I saw what a pathetically confused figure he was.

that what happened in Guantanamo was anything less than "torture" which involves the breaking of an individual's body and spirit. The Romans were experts at it and Latin was their language so they knew damn well how to define acts of terrible cruelty. Journalists who don't understand what "torture" means should either do some courses in the roots of the English language, particularly the words that are Latinate, or just openly admit that they're lying toads.

"This isn't an advertisement to vote for the lesser of two evils, but given that not voting is useless and voting for a thirdy party not effective with our current structure...WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE?"

-- omooex

---------------

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote except for your justifications for voting for Obama. You've admitted that I was basically correct, but then you go ahead and justify a vote based on obvious conning anyway.

I had a difficult time choosing between Obama and Nader myself, but I did choose Nader and it's being proven to me daily that I was correct in that choice.

I don't base my moral decisions on who I think has a better chance of winning, and I consider voting to be a moral decision.

It's obvious that the corporatist fascists have the two party locked up. Will you, even after the lesson of Obama (unless he changes his tune, which I hope to the Flying Spaghetti Monster he does), vote for another Democrat in the next presidential election?

Most people don't do well with it, and resort to various mental tricks, such as rationalization, denial, lying, and even outright fantasizing, when confronted by it. The overwhelming majority of Americans still do not view what the US did to African-Americans, native peoples, Japanese-Americans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, German civilians, Philipinos, etc., as in ANY way comparable to what "evil tyrants" like Saddam Hussein, Ahmedinejad, Castro, Hitler, Stalin and Mao did, even though these actions were, objectively, indisputibly the same exact thing.

So I'm not surprised that the media is doing this too. Whether or not its members personally have a problem with the truth, it's clear that editorially, they believe that Americans have a problem with the truth, and don't want to be subjected to TOO much of it, if it's inconveniently damning of their country and leaders. The unspoken dictum in the establishment media is that if the truth reflects too poorly on America, then it must be altered--"sanitized for American's protection", if you will--so that it doesn't do so. I think that this happens reflexively and unquestioningly, such that they people who do it aren't even consciously aware of it.

Not that other countries don't have their own self-mythology that preclude a frank and honest discussion of reality that doesn't require massive levels of spin and denial, but in the US, we've raised it to an art form. And it's reflected in the way that we repeatedly let ourselves off the hook for actions that, when they're committed by other nations--especially ones whose leaders we don't like--we deplore as depraced and evil. Is it projection? Is it denial? Is it immaturity? I don't know. Perhaps it's all of these and more. But we do it all the time, and are barely even aware of it. It's the national, collective version of Nixon's famous dictum: "If Amerca does it, then by definition it cannot be not bad". And most Americans truly believe that.

We're just not that mature a society. We can't handle reality. So we invent convenient myths to keep it at bay. And our political, media and corporate leaders are all too eager to help out.

"Some people, like Calamine, almost seem to be crying out for help, to be educated--or, at least allow you the opportunity to engage them honestly."

I certainly agree with engaging a commenter honestly if they show any desire to learn from the conversation. For the life of me, I don't understand how could you attribute such a desire to Calamine. From the comments made today, especially regarding ondelette's ancestry, I see any discussion with Calamine as a total waste of time and I wish disgusting commenters like Calamine were just ignored. They deserve no attention.