In April of this year, a
study was released that examined the shift in how the media characterized waterboarding. Waterboarding, a torture technique that was once prosecuted as a crime by the U.S., was almost never called torture by the media once America's use of waterboarding was widely exposed.
The current debate over waterboarding has spawned hundreds of newspaper articles in the last two years alone. However, waterboarding has been the subject of press attention for over a century. Examining the four newspapers with the highest daily circulation in the country, we found a significant and sudden shift in how newspapers characterized waterboarding. From the early 1930s 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. In addition, the newspapers are much more likely to call waterboarding torture if a country other than the United States is the perpetrator. In The New York Times, 85.8% of articles (28 of 33) that dealt with a country other than the United States using waterboarding called it torture or implied it was torture while only 7.69% (16 of 208) did so when the United States was responsible. The Los Angeles Times characterized the practice as torture in 91.3% of articles (21 of 23) when another country was the violator, but in only 11.4% of articles (9 of 79) when the United States was the perpetrator.
In today's news - from the Washington Post - we can read about (a)
Key omission in memo to destroy CIA terror tapes - where
"the CIA sent word in 2005 to destroy scores of videos showing waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics"A wording that clearly describes (the "and" is inclusive) waterboarding as a "harsh" interrogation tactic instead of calling it what it is - torture. (whatever happened to the other BS phrase - "enhanced interrogation techniques"? It seems to have been left to history)
Same story from
Yahoo"When the CIA sent word in 2005 to destroy scores of videos showing waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics"
From MSNBC:
Key omission in memo to destroy CIA terror tapes"When the CIA sent word in 2005 to destroy scores of videos showing waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics"
From CBS:
Key Omission In Memo To Destroy CIA Terror Tapes"When the CIA sent word in 2005 to destroy scores of videos showing waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics"
From the NYTimes:
Key Omission In Memo To Destroy CIA Terror Tapes"When the CIA sent word in 2005 to destroy scores of videos showing waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics"
Yes, the story came over the AP wire - but the point is that that story, with that particular wording, went to major and local newspapers all over America. The description of waterboarding as merely harsh - and not torture - went all over America for readers to absorb. The pretense continues. America's torture exception continues.
Compare to another recent story from the Washington Post -
Khmer Rouge's chief jailer guilty of war crimes, which tells us that "67-year-old Kaing Guek Eav - also known as Duch..." was "convicted in Monday's verdict of war crimes and crimes against humanity." - for crimes that included "
Torture used to extract confessions included pulling out prisoners' toenails, administering electric shocks and waterboarding."
The above article clearly says that waterboarding is torture.
"Torture used...included...waterboarding"A case of waterboarding being exactly what it is - torture - when it involves another country.
In the
NYTimes we read that "Duch" was convicted of torture - but not that the torture included waterboarding.
It's a subtle distancing of the crimes of the Khmer Rouge from the crimes of the Bush administration. I know waterboarding is torture and you know waterboarding is torture but the language used - or omitted - can and will influence the framing of the Bush administration's crimes.
In the
Richmond Times-Dispatch about Duch's conviction we read that "Many of the 16,000 people who passed through its gates were tortured to extract confessions. They were electrocuted, had toenails pulled out, and
were nearly drowned.
"Nearly drowned" - not waterboarded. The use of distancing language - as if torture by waterboarding and torture by being "nearly drowned" are somehow two different things.
We get the same wording from the
Seattle Times, the
boston.com, as well as the
The Houston ChronicleLanguage is a tool and sometimes a weapon. A weapon when it is used to hide atrocities.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
