Should a News Organization Be "Partisan" When One Party Represents Falsehood?

[Joanne98]

NPR (National Public Radio) has been criticized lately for using phrases like "harsh interrogation techniques" to describe the American use of waterboarding under the Bush administration. (Glenn Greenwald has been among those critics.)

Recently the Ombudsman for NPR, Alicia C. Shepard, responded to critics in an article that appears here

Here is a crucial passage from that article. (I will follow it with a brief comment of my own.)

******************************

There has been no clear consensus on what constitutes torture, noted Brian Duffy, NPR's former managing editor in late April.

"President Bush said, 'We do not torture -- period.' Yet water-boarding and several other tactics not approved in the Army Field Manual were approved by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) during his administration," said Duffy.

"During his confirmation hearings, Attorney General-designate Eric Holder said clearly that water-boarding was torture, and President Obama has said the same thing," he continued. "But the Obama Administration has issued no overarching statement on the issue, instead rescinding approval for CIA interrogators to use water-boarding and the other tactics the Bush administration approved but not making clear which tactics it does approve."

NPR decided to not use the term "torture" to describe techniques such as water-boarding but instead uses "harsh interrogation tactics," Duffy told me.

I recognize that it's frustrating for some listeners to have NPR not use the word torture to describe certain practices that seem barbaric. But the role of a news organization is not to choose sides in this or any debate. People have different definitions of torture and different feelings about what constitutes torture. NPR's job is to give listeners all perspectives, and present the news as detailed as possible and put it in context.

"I understand the desire to 'call a spade a spade,' but it is not for journalists to start labeling specific practices torture," said Duffy. "That's what the debate is about -- what constitutes torture?"

To me, it makes more sense to describe the techniques and skip the characterization. For example, reporters could say that the U.S. military poured water down a detainee's mouth and nostrils for 40 seconds. Or they could detail such self-explanatory techniques as forcing detainees into cramped confines crawling with insects, or forced to stand for hours along side a wall.

A basic rule of vivid writing is: "Show, Don't Tell."

******************

I actually feel some sympathy for both sides of this dilemma, but ultimately, even though the dilemma is real, one of those sides is not worthy.

The side for which my sympathetic feelings are most strained are those for NPR's feeling of a need to remain neutral in a battle that divides our major parties.

It should be noted, however, that the statement that "the role of a news organization is not to choose sides in this or any debate," is way too overdrawn. The American Nazi Party may declare that the Holocaust never happened, but NPR does not feel compelled to speak of the "alleged Holocaust." Nor, when speaking of our satellites going around the earth, does NPR feel it must honor the views of the Flat Earth Society.


1 | 2

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Should-a-News-Organization-by-Andrew-Bard-Schmoo-090713-324.html

[droidamus2]

1. A rationalization

What the spokesman said is just a rationalization. If they wanted to be truly neutral they would you statements like 'these harsh interrogation techniques which many consider to be torture'. That statement shows both sides of the controversy. NPRs use of the 'harsh technique' phrase is taking sides they have decided that calling it torture is wrong. As for the controversy I see it as being a lot like right wing approaches to the global warming debate in that they seem to think if 1500 scientists who specially in weather and eco-system sciences say it does exist but the right wing can find one scientist (whether their degree is in a science that directly addresses the problem or not) that say there is not warning then that constitutes a 'controversy'. No it doesn't. Not that the 'majority' opinion can't be wrong but the idea is that a small group of contrarians does not in and of itself make a controversy. If that small groups beliefs through experimentation and observation become even close to as excepted as the 'mainstream' idea then you have a true controversy.

[scubadude]

2. Ever since the Repubs defunded NPR they act like whipped dogs.

NPR 20 or more years ago was much more trustworthy and accurate. In my eyes that means honest.

This is just one more result of the Republicans 40+ year long attempt at moving political discourse to the right. NPR is one of the victims, and we are going to have to live with it for a long time. Now, with more of their funding coming from listeners, they have to be very careful who they offend. After all, who gives them those huge grants and contributions?

Scuba