> 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)