It matters little if the NYT (or any other institution or individual has called US interrogation techniques "torture" or not. What matters is how OFTEN and how CLEARLY they do so, and thus their overall expressed position.

It clearly matters to Glenn, as he wrote an entire article about it. He said they didn't call US actions torture, and since they have at least 10 times since April 26, he's obviously wrong.

But then, if Glenn did care about the point he was making, it would make sense for him to support it against proof that what it claims is obviously false.

How can you make it more clear that something is torture than to use the word "torture?" They don't us all caps or bold as a matter of style. In news stories, they don't have a position and shouldn't. They are reporting on the positions of others.

NYT did not call anything torture. They quoted others who did. Not the same thing at all.

"NYT did not call anything torture. They quoted others who did. Not the same thing at all."

-- Bob Potter

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

Exactly; and even if they had, my argument would still stand.

trend2121, you have earned a failing grade.

Exactly; and even if they had, my argument would still stand.

trend2121, you have earned a failing grade.

Congratulations on winning the point I made on Saturday morning at 5am:

In the first example given of the new use of the word torture, it said "rights groups say". The subsequent uses were in direct quotes. It wasn't the Times using the word, but repeating a word used by others.

In replying to your post, I was refering to what Glenn wrote, not you, where he said that non-US actions were called torture by the Times, but that US actions were not. I have made the point that in both cases they were quoting others who called those actions torture, not calling it that themselves. I've also shown that the Times has not, contrary to Glenn's main claim, treated US and non-US actions differently. 

half the population is below average, and the average I.Q. is 100!

Not true. If you have 3 people with IQs of 70, 110, and 120, the average is 100, but only one person is below average. What you're talking about is the median, not average. 

"Not true. If you have 3 people with IQs of 70, 110, and 120, the average is 100, but only one person is below average. What you're talking about is the median, not average."

-- trend2121

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

Incorrect. A 100 I.O. score is defined as the average:

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

As for the rest of your last post, I maintain that my point is entirely relevant. Even if Glenn wasn't 100% accurate about the NYT mentioning "torture" (and I don't know that he wasn't %100 correct) his general point is still valid, as my argument shows.

No one's research is consistently perfect, so even if you're correct about the NYT, you're still only nit-picking.