Apropos our conversatoin in today's class about the degree to which word choice constructs or shapes the meaning of the news, I noticed that today's New York Times' story about Leon Pannetta's appointment to be CIA director studiously avoided using the word "torture" except in a direct quote from someone else or when attributed to the opinions of a specific person. For example:
The job was the last unfilled major post for Mr. Obama, who has criticized
the agency for using interrogation methods he characterized as torture.
Otherwise, the article refers to "interrogation practices" or uses other such locutions to avoid describing the government's treatment of prisoners as "torture" when not directly quoting someone. It's an interesting question for the student of journalism writing: when does a term become so contested and controversial that it loses a clear meaning or definition in common conversation? Do the author's really not KNOW if so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute torture? Or are they avoiding controversy? And if it's the latter, doesn't the journalist's obligation to seek truth and report it obligate him to call a spade a spade?
No comments:
Post a Comment