The Media and the Word "Torture"

[bloodyminded]

I thought this matter already quite clear, but now we have the stats to back it up. This is a nice, clear example of Herman/Chomsky's "Propaganda Model" in action.

........................

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."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006300069

And here's Glenn Greenwald's excellent take on the matter (scroll down to "New Study Documents Media's Servitude to Government":

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

Edited July 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Borg]

Torture - causing discomfort or extreme pain to gain information that may save lives or prevent attack ........... Not gratuitous torture.

Once the information has been obtained cease and desist.

Easy to criticize when sitting in an arm chair - but you put people in the field - some who might not come home because YOU have put them their. They get pretty close. They will do damned near anything to protect their brother.

Sometimes you will stand for things that you would never do elsewhere. Life and death have a habit of making people do this.

Is it right? Well, it happens and some turn a blind eye because it works and because the info is needed in a hurry.

Is it wrong? Well, when you pick up the pieces of your friends upper torso to ship him home you might just wonder if some extra information might have kept him alive.

Tough to apply that geneva convention when the opposition does not believe in it. It makes others start to not believe in it as well.

Who does it? A large number of countries will do it. Not many will admit to it. On both sides.

It will continue. Not often by the common soldier - he is now far too well policed and worries he may do something wrong and come home to jail - when in fact he should worry more about coming home in a body bag.

No matter how regal we like to sound when we talk about it - torture will continue.

I am sure there are those who will love to piece by piece tear this response apart.

Reality is different than theory.

Just a pragmatic outlook on something that needs no definition. Stats can be made to tell a lot of stories - if torture will keep my son, brother, sister, mother, father, or friend and so on alive - I support it.

I suspect there are a great number of naysayers here who might also change their tune if they had someone in the line of fire. Honesty will not come easy to them until it actually happens to them.

The media is simply doing what it does best - selling copy by creating controversy.

Borg

Edited July 2, 2010 by Borg

[bloodyminded]

Torture - causing discomfort or extreme pain to gain information that may save lives or prevent attack ........... Not gratuitous torture.

Once the information has been obtained cease and desist.

Easy to criticize when sitting in an arm chair - but you put people in the field - some who might not come home because YOU have put them their. They get pretty close. They will do damned near anything to protect their brother.

Well, of course I'm not talking about snap decisions on the battlefield, though I've seen this kind of childish fantasy invoked to defend any number of terrible behaviours (which you would not so prettily applaud if it were the enemies' actions we were talking about...even though the exact same principles apply.)

No, I'm talking about the political leaders trying to sidestep in order to make torture acceptable...and unlike you, they don't even have the courage to call it torture.

Neither do the Generals, incidentally, so they must be politicized cowards too, in your book.

Just a pragmatic outlook on something that needs no definition. Stats can be made to tell a lot of stories

The stats provided were specifically and only about the major media's reporting on the issue. That's it.

I suspect there are a great number of naysayers here who might also change their tune if they had someone in the line of fire. Honesty will not come easy to them until it actually happens to them.

And I suspect there are a great number of supporters of torture who might also change their tune if they or their loved ones, who are innocent, were tortured.

The media is simply doing what it does best - selling copy by creating controversy.

Borg

You didn't even read the piece to which you're ostensibly responding.

The media weren't creating controversy; they were avoiding it. They listened to what the governemnt said, saluted, and shouted, "Sir, yes Sir!"

Edited July 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

It's easier to understand how some of our freedoms came to be such a hateful thing. The freedom to ignore our stated principles whenever the mood strikes us is particularly vile.

[bloodyminded]

It's easier to understand how some of our freedoms came to be such a hateful thing. The freedom to ignore our stated principles whenever the mood strikes us is particularly vile.

What underlines your assertion here is that ten years ago we wouldn't even be having such noxious debates about torture; it was well-understood that it was horrific.

People's tunes changed, with the stunning rapidity of wanton obedience, immediately after the Abu Ghraib scandal became public.

Right at that moment.

In other words: "Torture is wrong, it's barbaric, it's...what's that? OUR government supports torture? Ah...man, I hate those bleeding hearts who don't have the balls to commit to torture......"

Supporters and defenders of torture are basically servile little pussies, in other words (if I may denigrate my favourite thing for rhetorical effect).

Edited July 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

What underlines your assertion here is that ten years ago we wouldn't even be having such noxious debates about torture; it was well-understood that it was horrific.

People's tunes changed, with the stunning rapidity of wanton obedience, immediately after the Abu Ghraib scandal became public.

Right at that moment....

Sure does....and works both ways....as Canadians recoiled from the Somalia Affair and bloody photos. Torture still remained just as it always had depending on the exigencies of circumstance. Nothing has changed.

[bloodyminded]

Sure does....and works both ways....as Canadians recoiled from the Somalia Affair and bloody photos. Torture still remained just as it always had depending on the exigencies of circumstance. Nothing has changed.

At least one thing has changed: there are a lot more trembling, delicate little knuckledraggers who now support torture, precisely and only because some powerful men became more open about it. The support and/or defense of torture is almost entirely a result of obedience.

[bush_cheney2004]

At least one thing has changed: there are a lot more trembling, delicate little knuckledraggers who now support torture, precisely and only because some powerful men became more open about it. The support and/or defense of torture is almost entirely a result of obedience.

No, it is a far more sophisticated topic than your simple emotional condemnation would indicate, and not unlike the gradual acceptance of mechanized firearms, unrestricted submarine warfare, or strategic bombing. Interrogation methods are tools to be exploited for advantage no matter how you wish to characterize the practice. Along the violent continuum of actual maiming and killing, we can find a nice protocol for torture as well.

[bloodyminded]

No, it is a far more sophisticated topic than your simple emotional condemnation would indicate, and not unlike the gradual acceptance of mechanized firearms, unrestricted submarine warfare, or strategic bombing. Interrogation methods are tools to be exploited for advantage no matter how you wish to characterize the practice. Along the violent continuum of actual maiming and killing, we can find a nice protocol for torture as well.

This is a far better defense of torture than is the norm, and I'm impressed with it in the emotionally unattached, austere way that one might reluctantly be interested in the terrifying practices of Dr. Mengele.

In other words, I can aesthetically appreciate the embracing of the dark side, and look on with fascination at the wilful diminution of democratic principles of accountability--like watching maggots boiling in the eyes of roadkill--even as I feel pity for the commissars who adore power more than they love elementary human decency and the order imposed by human compassion.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is a far better defense of torture than is the norm, and I'm impressed with it in the emotionally unattached, austere way that one might reluctantly be interested in the terrifying practices of Dr. Mengele.

It is not intended as a "defense", but a presentation of torture inside the existing, accepted framework of "brutality".

In other words, I can aesthetically appreciate the embracing of the dark side, and look on with fascination at the wilful diminution of democratic principles of accountability--like watching maggots boiling in the eyes of roadkill--even as I feel pity for the commissars who adore power more than they love elementary human decency and the order imposed by human compassion.

Democratic "principles" also gave us third trimester abortions...complete with punctured skulls:

D&X, also called the partial-birth abortion, is performed on babies from the fifth month of development until birth. This procedure, which takes three days to complete,

has prompted controversy because of its particularly brutal nature

. The abortionist begins by dilating the woman's cervix for two days. On the third day, the abortionist pulls the baby through the birth canal feet first, leaving only the head inside. The abortionist then punctures the base of the skull with surgical scissors, inserts a tube and vacuums out the brain tissue, causing the skull to collapse.

[bloodyminded]

It is not intended as a "defense", but a presentation of torture inside the existing, accepted framework of "brutality".

It is specifically and unambiguously a defense.

Democratic "principles" also gave us third trimester abortions...complete with punctured skulls:

D&X, also called the partial-birth abortion, is performed on babies from the fifth month of development until birth. This procedure, which takes three days to complete,

has prompted controversy because of its particularly brutal nature

. The abortionist begins by dilating the woman's cervix for two days. On the third day, the abortionist pulls the baby through the birth canal feet first, leaving only the head inside. The abortionist then punctures the base of the skull with surgical scissors, inserts a tube and vacuums out the brain tissue, causing the skull to collapse.

Sure, there are an unlimited number of unrelated topics we could use to derail the argument, if we so wished.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is specifically and unambiguously a defense.

No, it is an assault on the cognitive dissonance that you are confortable with. Your "dark side" language telegraphs an existing naivete.

Sure, there are an unlimited number of unrelated topics we could use to derail the argument, if we so wished.

More of the same....afraid to examine the entire domain of "brutality" from "democratic processes". So with your limited tolerance for reality, "torture" of any kind never had a chance, even if it be only sleep deprivation. An innocent child's view...and that's OK.

[bloodyminded]

No, it is an assault on the cognitive dissonance that you are confortable with. Your "dark side" language telegraphs an existing naivete.

I should have quoted it, since it was lifted directly from Dick Cheney. Your issue is with him.

But you are natively unable to imagine that your defense of torture constitutes "cognitive dissonance."

More of the same....afraid to examine the entire domain of "brutality" from "democratic processes". So with your limited tolerance for reality, "torture" of any kind never had a chance, even if it be only sleep deprivation. An innocent child's view...and that's OK.

Examine the entire domain? So nothing should be said about anything.

There are pedophiles, so why discuss the glories of sexual congress? They're both part of an "entire domain."

Truly, the innocent child's view is the cringing servility to political leaders...which is where the newly enhanced support for torture has its genesis.

[bush_cheney2004]

I should have quoted it, since it was lifted directly from Dick Cheney. Your issue is with him.

But you are natively unable to imagine that your defense of torture constitutes "cognitive dissonance."

No, I am honest enough to admit that if fragging men, women, and children is OK, then "torturing" perps with loss of sleep for intel is only a venial sin at worst.

Examine the entire domain? So nothing should be said about anything.

Actions always speak louder than words. Your bleating deserves no special significance.

There are pedophiles, so why discuss the glories of sexual congress? They're both part of an "entire domain."

They sure are, and the law still struggles with the age of consent.

Truly, the innocent child's view is the cringing servility to political leaders...which is where the newly enhanced support for torture has its genesis.

Political leaders do not mean that much to me...I am fully capable of forming a position based on reality instead of your "democratic" fantasies. If you wish to parse away "torture" from all other known (and legitimate) forms of collective "brutality" that's your business, but don't expect everyone else to drink the same Flavor Aid.

[bloodyminded]

No, I am honest enough to admit that if fragging men, women, and children is OK, then "torturing" perps with loss of sleep for intel is only a venial sin at worst.

Sleep deprivation is perhaps the least of it, as you know.

And maybe you don't know that sleep deprivation becomes somewhat less mockable and more horrible when it continues long enough. All you need to do is perform the radical, if naive act of using a little imagination.

They sure are, and the law still struggles with the age of consent.

You're confusing sex with minors with pedophilia, a common error.

At any rate, every subject you now raise, on every topic, is to be dismissed as naive, and of not including the "entire domain" of possible topics. Including, of course, your responses and remarks here in this thread.

Political leaders do not mean that much to me...I am fully capable of forming a position based on reality instead of your "democratic" fantasies.

You know, I don't think you are. I think both your supportive and dismissive arguments depend overwhelmingly on your love of American power. Which is no terrible thing, but it's weak.

If you wish to parse away "torture" from all other known (and legitimate) forms of collective "brutality" that's your business, but don't expect everyone else to drink the same Flavor Aid.

BC, I genuinely don't expect you and I to agree except sporadically. It doesn't seem to be a problem.

Edited July 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Sleep deprivation is perhaps the least of it, as you know.

And maybe you don't know that sleep deprivation becomes somewhat less mockable and more horrible when it continues long enough.

That's the idea....how "horrible" for our sensitive MLW member!

All you need to do is perform the radical, if naive act of using a little imagination.

Methinks it is you who lacks imagination...and objectivity on such matters. That's OK.

You're confusing sex with minors with pedophilia, a common error.

No, I am forcing open your closed and bloody mind, as it refuses to accept certain realities.

At any rate, every subject you now raise, on every topic, is to be dismissed as naive, and of not including the "entire domain" of possible topics. Including, of course, your responses and remarks here in this thread.

Good...this is a start. Did you know that they shoot lame horses? Yep...right in the head!

You know, I don't think you are. I think both your supportive and dismissive arguments depend overwhelmingly on your love of American power. Which is no terrible thing, but it's weak.

Far broader than mere American power, but power in general. What is weak is to pretend that such power is somehow tamed by "democratic principles".

[Moonlight Graham]

When a govt like Cheney/Rummy and bros. institute things like waterboarding and deny it is torture, that is expected because they know full fell its torture but they do not want to publicly acknowledge it & suffer the political scorn (domestic or internationally). I get that, that's the game. But what really gets my gourd are these idiots in the public (and in MSM) that chime the same gov't dribble and actually believe themselves that waterboarding isn't torture. Weak-minded fools believing their own gov't spin.

Torture in the context of fighting terrorism is a tricky subject. The terrorists aren't a state, they dont really apply to the Geneva Conventions (unless im mistaken?). So how do you fight the enemy that doesn't play by the established international rules of war? Keep your principles, or adapt your gameplan?

This is what Michael Ignatieff discussed in his book "The Lesser Evil", ie: the ethics of fighting terrorism. Maybe torturing a dude to save 30 men from being blown up is "the lesser evil"? Very difficult ethical dilemma.

Interesting that Obama has completely backtracked on the whole "closing Gitmo" issue. The question is why? Has he found out something once he took office that Cheney & co. knew and has changed his mind? Or is it more political pressure, ie: people not wanting terrorist prisons on mainland U.S. soil?

[bush_cheney2004]

This is what Michael Ignatieff discussed in his book "The Lesser Evil", ie: the ethics of fighting terrorism. Maybe torturing a dude to save 30 men from being blown up is "the lesser evil"? Very difficult ethical dilemma.

No...it is a very straightforward decision when made in the context of conflict and loss. President Truman made this decision in a very diligent way before using nuclear weapons on civilain populations, a decision made easier by the precedent of incendiary bombings of cities in Europe and Japan. Ignatieff is not qualified beyond his academic perspective.

Interesting that Obama has completely backtracked on the whole "closing Gitmo" issue. The question is why? Has he found out something once he took office that Cheney & co. knew and has changed his mind? Or is it more political pressure, ie: people not wanting terrorist prisons on mainland U.S. soil?

Governance is far more difficult than writing books or essays for the wine and cheese crowd.

[Bonam]

Personally I believe torture is justified in, and only in, the "timebomb scenario" and analogous situations. When there is an imminent and significant threat, and an individual is believed by intelligence agents to have information critical to averting that threat, then really there is no other alternative. I believe any rational individual, given the choice between allowing torture of a terrorist or letting hundreds/thousands/millions of innocents die, really has no choice.

Outside of such scenarios, however, I really believe there is no use for torture. To torture someone just because they are a terrorist, if no immediate intelligence is needed, but just to punish them, or to get a confession out of them, is wrong, because it undermines the freedoms and liberties that underpin our civilization.

[Shwa]

Personally I believe torture is justified in, and only in, the "timebomb scenario" and analogous situations. When there is an imminent and significant threat, and an individual is believed by intelligence agents to have information critical to averting that threat, then really there is no other alternative. I believe any rational individual, given the choice between allowing torture of a terrorist or letting hundreds/thousands/millions of innocents die, really has no choice.

Outside of such scenarios, however, I really believe there is no use for torture. To torture someone just because they are a terrorist, if no immediate intelligence is needed, but just to punish them, or to get a confession out of them, is wrong, because it undermines the freedoms and liberties that underpin our civilization.

Is there a hard and fast definition as to what constitutes a "timebomb scenario" and are there hard and fast rules to triggering it's use?

There are always "imminent and significant" threats - from dirty nukes to poison powders to structure-busting car bombs. So are you saying that - since imminent and significant threats seem to be the case generally - that a general application of torture is justified?

On the other hand you say, "...if no immediate intelligence is needed..." That would be well and fine if you could stock your prisons with guys who know the whole story and you can simply select them when there is an immediate need. Sort of like a menu. But I don't think it works that way. There is always an immediate need for intelligence or intelligence that can be used for future "immediate" needs...

[bloodyminded]

That's the idea....how "horrible" for our sensitive MLW member!

Except, a bit ironically, it is torture's defenders who are the most dainty among us.

Good...this is a start. Did you know that they shoot lame horses? Yep...right in the head!

Ants, more often than reacting directly to other ants, tend to respond to absent nestmates, usually through pheromone signals.

Far broader than mere American power, but power in general. What is weak is to pretend that such power is somehow tamed by "democratic principles".

To some extent, it is tamed by democratic tendencies, though of course never totally. That's why many on the Right blame the "anti-war left" (though they're oversimplifying) for government's contemporary relative timidity re. massive kill campaigns....compared to a conflict as recent as Vietnam.

[bush_cheney2004]

Except, a bit ironically, it is torture's defenders who are the most dainty among us.

Non sequitur....torture detractors are no less "dainty", whatever that means.

Ants, more often than reacting directly to other ants, tend to respond to absent nestmates, usually through pheromone signals.

Clevis pins should be cleaned and lubricated as part or routine maintenance.

To some extent, it is tamed by democratic tendencies, though of course never totally. That's why many on the Right blame the "anti-war left" (though they're oversimplifying) for government's contemporary relative timidity re. massive kill campaigns....compared to a conflict as recent as Vietnam.

Democracy is fully capable of massive kills and mayhem, and has repeatedly demonstrated same. Base instincts and behaviours are moderated but not eliminated by "democracy". If anything, democracy only serves to formalize consolidation of power and group think on such matters (e.g. "...whereas Saddam Hussein....." ).

[bloodyminded]

Non sequitur....torture detractors are no less "dainty", whatever that means.

Then you're arguing with yourself: because torture supporters are no less "sensitive," whatever that means.

Clevis pins should be cleaned and lubricated as part or routine maintenance.

Aristotle believed women had fewer teeth than men, though it apparently never occurred to him to objectively establish this hypothesis.

Democracy is fully capable of massive kills and mayhem, and has repeatedly demonstrated same. Base instincts and behaviours are moderated but not eliminated by "democracy". If anything, democracy only serves to formalize consolidation of power and group think on such matters (e.g. "...whereas Saddam Hussein....." ).

True.