What Torture Debate?

Dear NPR,

I heard an interview with your ombudsperson, Alicia Shepard, on the radio program, On the Media.  It was the kind of hard hitting interview I wish there was more of in the American press.  I think it says something about you that 1) it was so challenging, maybe even hostile.  Probably the most of any story in any medium from any source (okay, this might be a little hyperbolic) of the year (this is a good thing) but also 2) it was challenging to . . . yourself, NPR.  How messed up is it that you are so critical of yourself and not so critical of, say, Dick Cheney?

The interview came down to whether or not NPR should call water-boarding torture, or "enhanced interrogation techniques".  Your ombudsperson claimed that NPR should "present the facts and let the listeners decide."  But in trying to have some level of objectivity you are allowing Cheney, et al. to perpetuate a rhetorical strategy that uses untruths as political perspective.  It's like the climate change debate - they yelled and screamed and found "scientists" willing to compromise their integrity, and they manufactured a debate.

Actually, I think this is ten times more cut and dried.  This is really a case of apples and oranges.  Or really, oranges.  There are those of us who want to call torture, torture; and oranges, oranges.  There are those of us who prefer to call torture, "enhanced interrogation techniques"; and prefer to call oranges, apples.  And then there is your ombudsperson who seems to prefer that NPR describe the fruit - it's orange, it's got a thick, pithy peel, it's got a sweet fruit that many people ingest as juice in the morning - and let the listeners figure out that it is an orange.  This seems overly convoluted since there is a perfectly good word that we can use to describe what happened - it's torture.

I hope that NPR thinks about their journalistic standards in a way that is more complex.  Coming down on the side of Truth is never a political decision, although it may have political repercussions.   Using euphemism or avoiding words merely because they are made politically controversial by one party or another is not objectivity, or fairness, but is rather a disservice to your listeners and to your greater mission, which is to provide information and understanding of the world around us.  In other words, don't worry about being so damn politically correct, call things what they are, and hit the politicians as hard as you hit yourself.

Sincerely,

DJO