"Torture" study reveals appalling cowardice of America's newspapers
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
"Torture" study reveals appalling cowardice of America's newspapers
On the one hand, waterboarding is torture.
On the other hand....
I'm sorry -- there is no other hand. Waterboarding is torture, period. It's been that way for decades -- it was torture when we went after Japanese war criminals who used the ancient and inhumane interrogation tactic, it was torture when Pol Pot and some of the worst dictators known to mankind used it against their own people, and it was torture to the U.S. military which once punished soldiers who adopted the grim practice.
And waterboarding was described as "torture," almost without fail, in America's newspapers.
Until 2004, after the arrival of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their criminal notions of "enhanced interrogations." For four years -- in what would have to be the bizarro-world version of "speaking truth to power," waterboarding was almost never torture on U.S. newsprint. Then waterboarding-as-torture nearly made a mild comeback in journo-world, until perpetrators like Cheney and Inquirer op-ed columnist John Yoo began the big pushback, when American newspapers bravely turned their tails and fled.
The sordid history is spelled out in a significant new report by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard (you can read it as a PDF file here). The report notes:
From the early 1930's until the modern story broke in 2004, the newspapers that covered waterboarding almost uniformly called the practice torture or implied it was torture: The New York Times characterized it thus in 81.5% (44 of 54) of articles on the subject and The Los Angeles Times did so in 96.3% of articles (26 of 27). By contrast, from 2002-2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture. The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63). The Wall Street Journal characterized the practice as torture in just 1 of 63 articles (1.6%). USA Today never called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture.
The report also notes that waterboarding had constantly been referred to as torture by newspapers when other nations did it, but when the United States did it in the 2000s, it was, to paraphrase Richard Nixon, not illegal. The study proves scientifically something we've been talking about here at Attytood since Day One, about the tragic consequences of the elevation of an unnatural notion of objectivity in which newspapers abandoned any core human values -- even when it comes to something as clear cut as torture -- to give equal moral weight to both sides of an not-so-debatable issue (not to mention treating scientific issues like climate changes in the same zombie-like manner).
Never before in my adult life have I been so ashamed of my profession, journalism.
There's already some good analysis of the report out there from the likes of Glenn Greenwald and Adam Serwer, who writes:
As soon as Republicans started quibbling over the definition of torture, traditional media outlets felt compelled to treat the issue as a "controversial" matter, and in order to appear as though they weren't taking a side, media outlets treated the issue as unsettled, rather than confronting a blatant falsehood. To borrow John Holbo's formulation, the media, confronted with the group think of two sides of an argument, decided to eliminate the "think" part of the equation so they could be "fair" to both groups.
The irony that Serwer notes -- and I completely agree -- is that in claiming they were working so hard not to take "a side," the journalists who wouldn't call waterboarding "torture" were absolutely taking a side and handing a victory to the Bush administration, which convinced newspapers to stop unambiguously describing this crime as they had done for decades prior to 2004. It's a tactic that has continued to this day. It's the reason why Cheney-- who'd been nearly invisible when he was in power -- and Yoo were suddenly all over the place beginning on Jan. 21, 2009, because they were desperately trying to keep framing this debate as the newspapers had, that their torture tactics were a public, political disagreement, and not a war crime.
And tragically, they succeeded. They were America's leaders, they tortured, and they got away with it. And newspapers and other journalists drove the getaway car.
I do think this report frames a much broader problem in America, which is that we've lost our ability to distinguish right from wrong on its most basic level, because of our need to filter everything through some kind of bogus political prism. Look past torture, and look at the Elena Kagan hearings down in Washington, and the shameful way that Republican senators have desecrated the memory of the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. What made Marshall a great American is that he started with an inalienable truth -- that segregation and other unequal treatment of blacks or other minorities are a sin against mankind -- and that it was our duty not just as Americans but as human beings to end that injustice by any peaceful means necessary. If Marshall had behaved the way that the 2010 Republican Party would want him to act, forget the notion of an African-American president -- there would be water fountains in some American states where Barack Obama could not get a drink.
Increasingly, we're losing our perspective, maybe our minds. We have candidates for the U.S. Congress comparing the taxes that we pay to finance the U.S. military or to pay for public schools to slavery, or to the Nazi-led Holocaust. As Americans, we should all seek higher ground over what we talk about when we talk about slavery, and what we talk about when we talk about torture.
And yet even some of my own colleagues failed -- journalists who started out with a mission to tell the truth and who got very, very lost in a thicket of politics and perhaps self-importance along the way.
And that is beyond shameful.
"because we see them here all the time." By that logic, almost all views are tolerated. Larry's an unintended comedian because he tout's his openmindness while calling thse who disagree with him cretins and non humans.— RG- That is hilarious, isn't it, RG?— pj katauskas
- "Mommy, mommy, it's just so unfair, mommy. The big bad media won't always report things just how we want them to. Make them do what we want, mommy." Ummmm, TPS? I think instead, the conservatives who actually have money created an immensely successful Cable News network instead, I think they call it "The Fox News Channel" and it seems to get pretty good ratings. Nowadays, all I hear is, "Mum-mum... Why does that incredibly successful news channel not show the news like I like to see it?? It's so unfair. They make Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson look ridiculous, keep pointing out the hypocrites and criminals in the Democratic party. It's just not nice, Mum-mum!!!" (Kid has to talk to Mum-mum because since he's in a liberal family, his mom is in jail for prostitution and his Dad was recently killed in Chester, not that they were ever married, or his mom really knew his Dad's first name).— IggleFan68
- And PJ/RG are correct here. Tolerance of someone else's views does not mean that you agree with them. Tolerance means that you support their right to have that view and express it.— IggleFan68
- pj, regarding these models that dont include russia, etc, that could be true, there are millions of models out there, and really each one is tailored to fit a certain agenda from the get go. again i dont know if we can take any model seriously, but the fact remains that we COULD be in big trouble, so we should prepare, i just dislike how the left makes this akin to denying that the sky is blue, its not a fact, its a theory based in a system we have very little understanding of. i work in the environmental / renewable energy field and i am big proponet of alternative/renewable energy because plain and simple, oil is both not in our control, nor is it going to last forever, so if we dont get off it now, it will just be harder/more expensive to do in the future. but be honest and dont lie to the public with these projections that have the east coast underwater in 100 years as fact, its a theory. one of the biggest things that demonstrates the hippocracy of environmentalists is that they are in favor of nuclear now. the facts changed so they are on board with nuclear now, what happens when we have actual facts about climate change, will they change their tune then?— Greg S
- Many thanks for the informative response, Greg. I figured you must work in some profession that requires you to be informed and objective about climate change, unlike politicians who promote a one-sided view, mostly Ds. I'm all for exploring and developing non-oil forms of energy. I just don't trust at all the global warming doomsdayers. Btw, there aren't too many reputable Rs who are against developing alternative energy. They just challenge the premise that if we don't the sky will fall.— pj katauskas
- Exactly, IggleFan!— pj katauskas
"Btw, there aren't too many reputable Rs who are against developing alternative energy. They just challenge the premise that if we don't the sky will fall." The sky won't fall. But we'll continue to fight wars, bury soldiers, destroy the environment, and ruin thousands of lives because we are so GD slow at developing alternative energy. Let's wait another couple decades. Why not?— one_eyed_jack- Gee, larry, I'm not religious at all, am not aligned with any church, really don't have a "rigid ideology," am pro gay rights and pro-choice. I consider myself center-right, which seems to define the majority of this country. You must be talking about a different "right" than where I stand.— pj katauskas
- Everyone on this board who says that they wouldn't waterboard a terrorist, after all options were exhausted and in an effort to save a loved one's life is full of it. It's easy to say your against it until you have responsibility on your shoulders.— kmjm22
- "They just challenge the premise that if we don't the sky will fall." Or one can udnerstand that it may pose a future problem, but mitigation may be a more cost effective, feasible solution, instead of costly alternative energies.— RG
- Excellent point, RG.— pj katauskas
- The idea that established renewables like wind and solar are not cost effective is a falicy, all energy generation is subsidized in one form or another. If the government is going to pay to make a new generation facility, wouldnt you prefer it runs on a free and infinite fuel source? The main problem with renewables is their intermitant capacity, suns not always shinning, wind not always blowing, etc (though the tide is as predictable as anything, tidal power could be big). We dont have the storage technology now to propery use renewables to completely replace fossil fuels (though nuclear works fine). But we are inching closer with battery technology, and if electric vehciles make it, offer a great localized storage option via vehcile to grid technology. The biggest issues is the politics of fear the left practices with global warming... yes yes yes, turns out the right isnt the only side that plays on peoples fears. Cap and trade will be a big mistake, as it acts as a giant shell game to mask where money is going. If you want to reduce emissions and promote renewables, have a simple dedicated tax, all emmission taxes go directly to fund rebates and incentives on renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.— Greg S
- Greg S. --You don't figure that the Becks, Limbaughs, Hannitys, Palins, Tea Partiers, Nordquists, Roves, big players in the status quo, and Republican Congressional leadership would all make sure your proposed tax would go down in defeat?— H. lumensis
- No doubt they'll make a stink about additional taxes, and rightly so since they are done under the fear mongering that emissions are causing global warming, thus we should tax them to get people to stop. I am simply advocating for a tax rather than cap and trade which will line the systems administrators pockets rather then use the funds to promote renewable technologies.— Greg S
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
