[lbo-talk] Re: "torture" vs. "abuse"

[Jon Johanning]

On Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 03:08  PM, Chuck Grimes wrote:

> So, put two and two together. If the NYT ran `Torture Scandal Widens',
> guess how long it would take the WT Press Secretary or Rumsfeld's
> office to get on the horn?

Ha! I'd like to see them try to keep the NY Times (generally regarded 
by the mainstream, at least, as the premier news organization of the 
country) from covering the White House. That would cause a lovely 
donnybrook.

I think the Times' avoidance of "torture" is essentially part of its 
constant desire to appear "objective" and "neutral." "Abuse" is 
supposedly a "neutral," "non-emotional"word. For example, everyone 
talks about "child abuse," even activists working on the problem. In 
fact, of course, it's "child torture," but if anyone used that term, 
they would get a reputation for being a nutcase before you could say 
"propaganda."

Personally, I think the NY Times, and everyone else, should call it 
torture, because that's what it is. But then I'm not running a huge 
media corporation.


Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org
__________________________________
When I was a little boy, I had but a little wit,
'Tis a long time ago, and I have no more yet;
Nor ever ever shall, until that I die,
For the longer I live the more fool am I.
-- Wit and Mirth, an Antidote against Melancholy (1684)