On The Media

"Not the role of the media to take on characterizing things?" It is the role of the media to inform as opposed to endorse -- the terms 'enhanced' or 'harsh interrogation' are endorsements of the Bush administration's spin on the entire topic of torture. How intentionally misleading is the term 'harsh'. And what about 'enhanced' -- try defining that one! We tend to 'enhance' good features or attributes of things, not bad or destructive ones.

What on earth is the problem with calling something what it is? Why the fear of the word torture? Not using the term accurately and where it is called for, calling torture by another name, evokes frightening reminders of George Orwell's "1984" and thought speak. It contributes to societal denial and is thus a very disturbing and potentially disasterous practice.

Alicia Shepard is a pussy footing jerk. She should be replaced. Call a spade a spade. Torture is torture. I never heard such a weak justification of avoiding the use of the word torture. NPR shame on you.

I was so encouraged to see the enormous number of comments to Mrs. Shepard's article. Currently, there are 360 comments, almost all of which rebut NPR's defense of not calling torture by it's proper name.

Mr. Garfield, thank you for featuring this little tussel on your program. Your interview was excellent, as usual.

I am curious, did Nina Totenberg decide to use the phrase, "enhanced interrogation techniques" in her story, or did her editor ask that she use it? What are her thoughts about the use of the phrase? Is it "company" policy to use the phrase in certain circumstances? What are those circumstances?

People are still adding comments at the NPR Ombudsman web site. Check it out.

http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/

Alicia Shepard's take on the use of the term torture to describe techniques like water boarding was mind blowing. What she recommends is not good old-fashioned journalistic objectivity, but a lobotomized form of reporting that refuses to state the obvious: water boarding has long been considered torture and conforms in its particulars to any legal or dictionary definition of the term. The only people contesting the use of the term are former Bush administration officials and their apologists.

Ms. Shepard's tenure as NPR Ombudsman has been consistently hard to fathom. This bazaar ruling on the use of the word torture associated with water boarding is just the latest example of questionable findings by Ms. Shepard. It is long past time that NPR replace her with someone who understands what the word ombudsman means.

Shepard says, "[Journalists should] stop characterizing things, [and] just describe what they are." Wouldn't this imply referring to "water-boarding" as "water-boarding" rather than either "torture" or "enhanced interrogation?" The use of either term asserts an ideology. Due to the necessity of succinctness in journalism it seems necessary to generate a categorical analysis of events or people. As Garfield mentions, the term "terrorist" is problematic with a journalism that must describe and not characterize. Thus the problem journalists face is to create a term from such a categorical analysis that asserts as little ideology as possible (though these terms themselves will inevitably become laden with ideological connotation). In the case of water-boarding, there is really no reason to refer to it as anything other than "water-boarding." Indeed it is the happy syllabic medium between "enhanced interrogation" and "torture." A news that "describes" rather than "characterizes" would fascinating feat, though it would definitely be quite a laborious read.

"...it's not the role of the media to take on characterizing things." Ms. Shepard may try to walk a razor's edge to placate the many critics who feel NPR is a far-left mouthpiece but she serves no one by her specious reasoning in this matter. This nation has convicted and executed people who used these same exact methods. Those who argue the definition turn away from the act to tone down the rhetoric or move the dialogue forward but the act remains the same.

Will the terms 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors' be next for a language cop to neuter?

The NPR reps preposterous back peddling was the most tortured logic I have heard since listening to Alberto Gonzales trying to rationalize the actions he and Bush/Cheney put in place.

Bob, I want to thank you for not accepting the line of wackiness and it was obvious that you also were taken-aback by the 'spin.'

I guess NPR takes seriously the GOP stats on 'media bias' so they want to give a 'fair and balanced' approach to the news. But we already get that from FOX-News.

I continue to hope that NPR will be the voice of sanity between FOX and MSNBC, but after listening to the Ombudsman I guess I'll have to go back to the British media to get unbiased/unpolitically correct news.

Thanks

NPR should find as many people as they can that believe waterboarding is not torture, and then offer to waterboard them to see if they are for real, or just BS-ing. When I say people, I mean anyone, big and small, former president to Joe the plumber willing to publicly state it, and be waterboarded.

Usually opinions cannot be rigorously tested, lie detectors are flawed. This is one case where you can actually test if someone believes waterboarding is torture or not.

Mr. Garfield, very good interview. Direct, blunt, well phrased and fair questions.

Ms. Shepard's argument is simply disgraceful. She attempts to equate a hypothetical listener's argument that a doctor performing abortions should be called a terrorist to a term that is defined by law and by treaty. This nation has ratified treaties empowering the International Committee of the Red Cross to determine what is torture, and they have determined that waterboarding is torture. The only thing that has in common with the hypothetical listener's arguement is the likelihood that NPR will receive criticism, which is all too likely the actual reason this policy.

Ms. Shepard's logic embraces the worst of "he-said-she-said" journalism that pretends "balance" is objectivity. The highest principle of journalism should be to tell the truth, not to avoid taking sides.

Jim's last sentence says it all.

Guess the "new" ombudsan I last wrote to got canned. It is not a job that seems to have longevity associated with it, at NPR.

Are you kidding me?! What in God's name is this "Ombudsman" saying? That the role of journalism is to present both sides of an argument and let the listener decide. Hell, we have CSPAN for that. Get real, perhaps the role of a good journalist is to present the argument, and say, oh by the way, these are the facts.

This blatant use of PC language in the face of FACT in the hope of avoiding the Rush and the Papa Bear is cowardice. You do a disservice to both NPR and the loyal NPR listener. You are NOT my Ombudsman!!!

How disgraceful of OTM to use a picture along with this segment that has nothing what so ever to do with the actual story. This is another example of shoddy source work by OTM designed to mislead consumers of NPR news. OTM ought to be ashamed of itself for this lapse in not only journalistic ethics, but of journalistic standards. The picture used was neither an enhanced interrogation nor torture. Lets get some good solid journalism back in OTM's coverage of the media. The image mistake is so irresponsible it takes what was a tough interview by Mr. Garfield look like pure posturing. You need to get the basic facts right before you take on someone on language like Mr. Garfield did in this segment.

Halfway between Orwellian absurdity and actual facts is not anything like balanced. Neutral is to make judgment about what the actual facts are even if they favor one side over another, perhaps especially so.

The whole point of Orwellian propaganda is to stake out all the extreme points and insist that your fantasy world and actual reality are just different opinions. The absurdity of the claim or hugeness of the lie is irrelevant, as long as they can get at least some people to doubt reality, they have won the day.

The only value of news (as opposed to sycophancy) is to wade through the lies and half truths and report what the real facts are. Fail that and you are just another partisan.

Great interview!

Alicia Shepard appears to be incompetent. She is not acting as an ombudsman; she is acting as a mouthpiece for an editorial policy that even she can't defend coherently.

She also does not appear to understand journalism: how are you going to fit 'a detailed description of the facts' into a headline? You aren't. So you're either going to say "torture", or you're going to say "harsh interrogation". One of those terms is upheld by historical usage and all legal authorities, the other term is a euphemism coined by the perpetrators. Which one would an unbiased journalist choose?

Finally, she doesn't even understand the listeners who she's supposed to represent. She can't imagine why we are so upset about this blatant one-sidedness.

I think these personal attacks on Alicia Shepard are obnoxious and misplaced. The position she articulated is one shared by most news organizations, all of which fear the consequences of using "loaded" language.

This has nothing to do with Alicia Shepard's or NPR's competence or good faith. It has to do with an institutional aversion to the appearance of partisanship. The issue at hand is whether that insistence on appearing neutral a) implicitly validates an untenable political or legal position, b) obscures truth.

"It's a hotly debated topic. Isn't that why any news organization is studying it, analyzing it, trying to figure out what's the right thing to do?"

Yeah, that sounds right. So what's the problem about doing that for "torture"?

She goes on to claim that all's OK, because NPR may refer to specific techniques such as waterboarding as torture. So here's my compromise: "enhanced interrogation techniques including torture". But since space is tight... let's just call it torture.

@Bob Garfield: "Attacks" on Shephard are totally justified, as soon as she comes on as the spokeswoman and apologist for NPR. In addition, her own performance in carrying out this mission was so pathetic in her failure to reconcile her own statements with the policy she's defending, that it's worthy of comment.

I enjoyed this interview and agree that Ms. Shepard's opinion represents the average representative media view on how to deal with this issue, and therefore should not be personally attacked.

However there is a major flaw with her argument. As a project manager for a municipality, I hear the same argument from every average contractor: 'Why do I need to do a better job here, since it was never well done in the first place?' That's essentially Ms. Shepard's argument: 'That's what the average media outlet is doing, so with some thought, we are following suit.' My answer is always the same: 'Had I wanted a mediocre job I would asked (specified) for it." I ask a lot from NPR and in situations like this I do not get it.

Furthermore her example of the (I am sure many) requests to call a doctor performing abortions a terrorist has not value in this argument since performing abortions is LEGAL! Most of the western world allows doctors to legally perform some form of abortions, while ALL of the of the entire world considers waterboarding torture.

Lastly, Ms Shepard's argument about the descriptive power of the English language and the euphemisms we use daily is precisely why the use of the word torture should be used by NPR.

I think you should get a new ombudsman. She does a good spin and that's NOT the job of the ombudsman. So she's been in journalism for 30 years and gets a D grade for her work.

aka BrettG - WNYC

As I have posted on Ms. Shepard's site, I find her "neutral" stance not only not neutral but insulting to both the public & our armed services. The fact that those with little or no military experience have started a false debate over an international treaty-defined term seems to hold no weight. If she really wants to "neutrally" report the factsm why doesn't she have NPR report that waterboarding has been outlawed under long-settled international treaty law (Geneva Conventions, etc.). Instead she opts to prolong the fiction that whoever is POTUS has some extra-Constitutional power to "define" torture & have it accepted by anyone except that Administration.

Furthermore, her statement seems to have been made without research @ the DOD JAG offices or any veteran organizations. She's made her statement, arguendo, without benefit of any knowledge or research of why the POTUS/Cheney ignored the DOD lawyers & let lawyers who saw the WH as their main client & ginned up a "new" definition to satisfy their boss. And they did this to criteria dictated by the WH, not by experience with relative laws, etc. She also neglected to mention that these poor DOJ "opinions" have endangered & will continue to endanger our armed forces & citizens for years & maybe decades to come.

Thanks to Bob for his close questioning of Ms. Shepard. She has narrowed ethics to such a narrow portfolio that she could have written all the Iraq investigation whitewashes for both the UK & the US.

Why doesn't NPR *require* its listeners to be waterboarded, in order to form the best opinion possible. That would clearly be more informative than simply describing it....

Mr. Garfield,

The misuse of an erroneous photograph by OTM in this segment speaks more to NPR's INcompetence and BAD faith than any use of language could.

Using an blatantly incorrect photograph is an untenable journalistic position that does more to obscures truth than any discussion of language.

I look forward to your correction of this grievous error on Friday if not before.

If I'm not mistaken, Edward R. Murrow took sides.

Firmly AGAINST McCarthy - when it wasn't POPULAR and even dangerous to do so!!!

Truth NEVER has two sides (I think that's journalism 101, isn't it)!!!!

What's happened to (once courageous) journalism in this country!?

I think Alicia Shepard needs to be shown the door and someone like Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, or preferably Daniel Schorr, or Walter Cronkite needs to be brought in as Ombudsman. They might at least have some credibility in this position!

Clearly, there are two sides to the question of whether Ms. Alicia Shepard has the judgment and intelligence to serve in the role as ombudsman for NPR. There clearly are are many people out there who think that she has no conception of the role or nature of journalism, regardless of her years of experience in the field.

Therefore, I think that she and the rest of NPR should refrain from labeling her the "ombudsman" and instead simply describe what she does. To use that label or title is to bias the discussion, presenting a conclusion where there really is much debate.

I am confident that she will agree, based on standard she so clearly elucidated in her interview -- as presented in this piece.

Thank *you*, Ms. Shepard.

Referring to forms of torture as "enhanced interrogation techniques" is like calling rape "enhanced reproductive organ stimulus." Torture is torture and rape is rape. To paraphrase Alicia Shepard: "why's it so important to call it rape?"

As a professional journalist and a professor in journalism, I respect the drive to be totally accurate and fair. But to disregard signed treaties that define torture, findings by such long respected organizations as the Red Cross by ignoring their findings on whether or not torture took place is hard to defend in the name of impartiality. To say that instead, into already tight air time one should ignore established defintions and instead describe these actions, just doesn't seem to make sense.

I am a regular NPR listener, sometimes agreeing with the slant and sometimes not. Here in the Chicago area the WBEZ slant is habitually left rather than right, so it is ironic that Ms. Shepard is being criticized from the left. Most of my friends who listen to NPR also tend to be left of center, so I am not surprised that the comments almost universally attack Ms. Shepard.

Let me express another view.

1. I believe that waterboarding is torture. All of the "enhanced techniques," however, are not so obvious. Some are discomforting rather than painful. Thus the use of the milder wording to cover both torture and non-torture used on detainees is appropriate for a neutral report.

2. There is "torture" and "torture Light." By that I mean that the word covers too much territory. Even the waterboarding done to the three captives does not compare with shooting people in mass graves, severing digits to cause gradual death, live burial, smashing babies' skulls, starvation, the rack, rape, Holocaust practices, etc. All are torture. Indiscriminate use of a word that makes waterboarding the same as these other horrors is also imprecise at best--and lends itself better to propaganda than to neutral description.

3. Ms. Shepard's problem was in her lame defense of her decision--probably more the media practice of CYA than anything else. Be "neutral" even if it misleads to avoid censure. Had she made the points above, I could stand with her decision. Since she copped out, she made a very typical mistake of someone long affiliated with news media.

Come to think of it, I have not heard "On the Media" feature forceful and persistent questioning of this as was directed at Ms. Shepard re "torture."

During this week's discussion of whether or not NPR should use the word Torture when referring to waterboarding, Ms. Shepard stated more than once that it was not up to her or to NPR to define what is and is not torture. In the process, she also mentioned enraged people e-mailing her demanding to know why abortion doctors aren't called murderers on the air.

The answer is the same in both cases: Abortion doctors are not referred to as murderers because the legality of performing abortions is not in question, nor is the proper terminology for referring to them. In other words, it has been determined by our nation's legal authority that abortion doctors are not murderers.

In fact, multiple legal authorities, across a great many nations -- all of whom were mentioned in the OTM discussion -- have determined that waterboarding IS torture. In other words, this has been decided by people and organizations that have the authority and the gravity to make such decisions.

As such, by calling waterboarding torture, NPR would not in any way be making this decision for people -- it would be referring to a practice in a manner that is entirely appropriate and in no way misleading.

While it is certainly up to the public to decide for themselves whether they believe waterboarding is morally wrong -- just as they must decide for themselves whether they personally consider abortion to be murder or a legal medical procedure -- it is utterly unambiguous that the term torture applies to waterboarding. Indeed, the decision is not NPR's to make: If they wish to refer to waterboarding accurately, they have a responsibility to acknowledge it as torture, not to hide behind the disgusting euphemism coined and clung to by those who would seek to justify it.

NPR's defense, and Shepard's espousal thereof, is insulting and wrongheaded, and does a tremendous disservice both to its reputation for honesty and its esteem among contributing listeners, myself included. Fie.

In what sense is Shepard acting as ombudsman and in what sense is she mere corporate flack?

Contrast and compare Shepard's "journalism's job is to let the listeners decide" and the ABC President in your prior segment saying that that can be A role, but is not THE role.

In this case, Ted Koppel of both ABC AND NPR got it right. The US calls it torture (and prosecutes and gives death sentences to perpetrators of) to these techniques when opposing countries do them to US Soldiers. Therefore it's torture.

Alisa Shepard and NPR should have enough brains and integrity to be able to call propaganda propaganda and stick to legal definitions.

P.S. You don't need Javascript to have comment forms, and you should test your system with Firefox.

"Not characterizing things"? What about NPR's (and other media's) willingness during the illegal-immigration debate, to "characterize" the Republicans as "anti-immigration", when that was, and is never, ever the case?

What about NPR's insistence on using the term "undocumented immigrants", as opposed to "illegal aliens"? "Undocumented Immigrants" makes it sound as if they just forgot to pick up their papers as they came across the border.

NPR, you're hardly innocent in the coloring and editorilizing of news content.

Based on Ms. Shepard's comments, I no longer consider NPR a news organization, nor do I consider them journalists. By her logic, these things are now in dispute and according to their policy, they should not be in the business of characterizing what they do as news or themselves as journalist.

A thousand thanks to Bob Garfield for holding Alicia Shepherd's feet to the fire on NPR's maddening insistence on parroting the Bush admin's gobbledegook about "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques." I want to throw my radio across the room every time they use this term. It's true that language is "evaluative," but words also have reference; they mean things. And as Garfield ably pointed out, the only people who don't recognize waterboarding as torture are Bush and Cheney.

A thousand thanks to Bob Garfield for holding Alicia Shepherd's feet to the fire on NPR's maddening insistence on parroting the Bush admin's gobbledegook about "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques." I want to throw my radio across the room every time they use this term. It's true that language is "evaluative," but words also have reference; they mean things. And as Garfield ably pointed out, the only people who don't recognize waterboarding as torture are Bush and Cheney.

Alicia Shepherd should resign.

Would you prevaricate on the Holocaust, the genocide in Africa, or the genocide in the Balkans?

The WORLD has long considered water boarding to be torture. Use the word.

Whenever I listen to NPR, I'm reminded at the top of every hour that NPR and its affiliates are 'listener-supported radio.'

What I'm seeing here, as well as in the comments to Ms. Shepard's original column, is that your listeners are not supporting you on this one.

Wow… 38 comments! And maybe 3 were dissenting voices in support of Mrs. Shepard. (and one was Bob Garfield!) What an embarrassment for NPR whose audience appears so monolithically left wing. An ombudsman s job is to be fair to both sides. Mrs. Shepard has shown a tremendous amount of courage in the face of this McCarthy like onslaught.

Most Radical Far Left bordering on scary.....

See comments #2 ('john nuzzi') # 16 ('bob potter') and #32 ('jerry') for an examples of ad-hominem attacks ('pussy footing jerk'....'incompetent'.....'should have enough brains') . Many opinions were expressed respectfully but too many showed repressive intolerance.

US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340: Definitions

As used in this chapter—

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality

US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340A. Torture

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

This seems pretty clear to me. I am left with the question:

Is Alicia Shepard ignorant, delusional or merely lying?

Mr. Garfield: I just can not agree with your interpretation of Ms. Shepard's behavior, or that of the rest of the media perpetrating or defending this behavior. Once news organizations "fear the consequences of using 'loaded' language," they stop being journalists and become stenographers.

We were fortunate that you didn't follow that premise in your interview.

Where's George Carlin when you need him?

Ms. Shepard never answers the central question -- why is it OK for NPR to take the side of the accused culprits when it comes to the torture discussion? "There are two sides to the issue" completely ignores who is on each side and what their motivations are. Neutrality is a practice, not a principle. And it's a practice that is only selectively used. Doctoral theses will be written on the debate over the use of the word "torture." We are living through a case study in the failure of mass media.

By Alicia Shepard's logic, if Roman Polanski's apologists were to claim that sodomizing a middle schooler (the crime Polanski was charged with before fleeing the country) isn't really child molestation then she would agree to adopt a euphemism to describe what Polanski (and other pedophiles) did because to call a spade a spade is "taking sides".

This kind of thinking is both moronic and morally repugnant.

@Bob Garfield

"This has nothing to do with Alicia Shepard's or NPR's competence or good faith. It has to do with an institutional aversion to the appearance of partisanship. The issue at hand is whether that insistence on appearing neutral a) implicitly validates an untenable political or legal position, b) obscures truth."

And if the answer to both a) and b) is yes, THEN would it have something to do with Alicia Shepard's or NPR's competence or good faith?

Are you saying that a journalist can insist on validating untenable legal positions and obscuring truth, yet still be acting competently and in good faith?

"[It's] not the role of the media to take on characterizing things."

How many people need to disagree with an established fact before NPR bows to that minority view? If it is no more than the number who believe waterboarding isn't torture, can we expect NPR to use the following "non-characterizing" language:

• the so-called "globe"

• the so-called "Kennedy Assassin" Lee Harvey Oswald

• the so-called "moon landing"

• the so-called "Holocaust"

• the allegedly "Hawaiian-born president"

• the allegedly "Christian president"

• the allegedly "illegal" Watergate break-in, and

• purportedly "listener-supported" public radio

Sometimes A=A.

-- MrJM

I won't pick on Shepard, per se, but this is exactly the kind of fuzzy-headed thinking that had me leave journalism 20 years ago with a "what the hell was I thinking of writing this pap" attitude. This fairness fault has meant that newsrooms everywhere are filled with intellectual do-nothings that have allowed journalism to flounder to a level of complete irrelevance. We see this in Minnesota where no one is willing to call Rep. Michele Bachmann what she really is – a paranoid nutcase. Only the people being covered and the stupid want complete objectivity. Smart people don't need to be spoon fed. And this doesn't even get into the whole collection of vocabulary that is needed summations – schools for building with teachers and students; rape for forced intercourse, murder for wanton killing and on and on.

Ms. Shepard:

"our language in general is totally evaluative and loaded with meaning and so whatever someone uses if someone else disagrees with it, then that language is wrong."

What a bizarre assertion. No. Just because someone disagrees with what I have said, it does not necessarily mean that my "language is wrong." There is a question of truth here. I may, in fact, be speaking the truth, not merely using a "loaded term".

Particularly in the case of "torture" we have these pesky things called "laws" which use unambiguous language in referring to torture and describing torture.

The root of this entire issue does not rest upon some wonderful "impartial" principle of journalism which NPR and Ms. Shepard are attempting to uphold. It rests upon fear, and the cowardice in action which is a result.

As Mr. Garfield quite accurately stated in his comment above: "The position she articulated is one shared by most news organizations, all of which fear the consequences of using "loaded" language."

And what are the "consequences" of using truthful (not "loaded" but truthful and accurate) terms? Well, the consequences are that the government might object, might tinker with their media passes, restrict who they get "access" to, and so on.

The decision not to use the word "torture" in reference to waterboarding is a direct attack on our language.

If we do not have and use a word, we make ourselves incapable of thinking the concept.

Members of primitive tribes who have no words for quantities larger than four or five, resorting to the word "many" instead, make lousy mathematicians, military leaders, or journalists.

Members of news organizations that are incapable of using the word "torture" when it is appropriate also make lousy journalists.

Bob Garfield needs a good strong slap upside the head. Ms. Shepard has already received her's (got her attention, anyway.)

Here's where Garfield goes way wrong:

He asserts the issue is to avoid being seen as "partisan." But when he mentions that by using euphemisms for torture instead of the word itself, NPR is in effect endorsing the Bush administration view, Shepard agrees that is what is happening.

In other words, both Garfield and Shepard endorse NPR's partisanship on this issue.

Not cool.

Alicia Shepard's rationale is both confused and confusing. How is is that “harsh interrogation techniques” is any less a characterization of waterboarding than "torture"?

To have Ms. Shepard agree with Bob Garfield that "to embrace terms like 'harsh interrogation tactics' instead of calling a thing by its name, in effect, gives credence to the Bush Administration’s argument" displays an utterly muddled understanding of the discussion. Having made that concession, she cannot expect her argument about not taking sides to be taken seriously.

If, as Ms. Shepard argues, news outlets should "just stop characterizing things, just describe what they are," then waterboarding should be described as -- to use her words -- "pouring water down someone’s nose and throat for 20 seconds." THOSE are the facts.

If Ms. Shepard and NPR want a way out of their quandary, the solution -- hinted at by Bob Garfield -- is to reference the judgment of the institutions to which the global community assigns the legal and moral standing to make these kinds of calls. In this case: The U.N.’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Convention on Torture, and likely others. NPR can readily reference the judgment of those institutions as the final word on the matter.

That approach also serves to explain why, to answer Ms. Shepard's self-posed question, "why ... NPR [doesn't] call a doctor who performs abortions a terrorist." The answer is that the institutions with the legal and moral standing to judge abortion -- the AMA and the courts, for example -- do not determine it to be terroism.

Oh my God, she teaches journalism! She doesn't know the difference between a legal medical procedure and torture an illegal clearly definded immoral action?

Thank you for proving what a Right Wing gutless hack the so called "Ombudsman" is. Pathetic weal words form someone who's suppose to teach journalism.

Exhibit A in the degradation of of journalism in America. NPR News programs ATC and ME and turned into nothging but FOX & Friend Lite

Also, nice proof that a paycheck will always trump speaking the truth.

Thank you Mr. Shepard, I will be donating to directly to specific programs that have journalistic integrety, like OTM (gratuitous pander)

It also explains why she will no repsond the my complaint that NPR

@Bob Garfield:

I feel that your scold was mostly in reaction to my post, so let me respond.

I did not make a "personal attack" on Ms. Shepard. I "attacked" her work, as exhibited in your interview. Is that inappropriate? Isn't it pretty much what "On The Media" does every week?

Regardless of the topic under discussion, isn't inflaming, rather than soothing, the friction between NPR and its listeners a sign of incompetence for an ombudsman?

I get it that you didn't intend this interview to be ABOUT Ms. Shepard. But the way it came out, it was.

@George Bendemann

An ad-hominem attack would be to say "she is incompetent, therefore her arguments lack merit". What I said was "her arguments lack merit, therefore she is incompetent". Don't confuse the two.

Now, you could probably make a case that I was rather rude ... but that would be an ad-hominem attack, no?

As a journalist who works in public radio, I want to say first how disheartening it is to see the lack of intellectual probity in Ms. Shepard's position on using the government-endorsed euphemism for torture. Her question, "Why is it so important to call something torture?" sounds to me like a capitulation, a refusal to engage the moral and ethical dimensions of a question that is of vital interest to NPR's audience and indeed to the country at large.

Second, I want to applaud Mr. Garfield's questioning. It was pointed and tough without becoming belligerent. Nice job.

Today on ATC, Bernie Madoff was referred to as a swindler, which I think is a harsh, partisan, ad hominem attack on the guy. I am guessing that in the name of balance we can find several people who think he is a Laissez Faire entrepreneur.

@jerry June 30, 2009 - 04:06AM

"Today on ATC, Bernie Madoff was referred to as a swindler, which I think is a harsh, partisan, ad hominem attack on the guy. I am guessing that in the name of balance we can find several people who think he is a Laissez Faire entrepreneur."

No, no, no. It's OK to call Madoff a swindler, since he was found guilty in a court of law. The torturers, on the other hand, have managed to avoid their day in court, in large part because of a media complicit with clouding the reality of the crimes they are accused of committing.

It's difficult to listen to the strange rationalizing of NPR's refusal to use the word 'torture' in its reporting of torture. The reporter's job is to present the facts, and subscribing to and parrotting the government's euphemisms is sad evidence of what now passes for reporting. Thanks, Bob Garfield for asking the right questions. Shame on NPR for keeping such an 'ombudsman' on the payroll.

I'll show you your chains if you show me mine

There's no place to hide if everyone's lyin'

And the watchman sings "The Song of Jolly Roger"

Add my name to the list of people who think Ms. Shepard is incompetent and has done a disservice to NPR listeners.

"Why is it so important to call something torture?" betrays such a lack of awareness of the function of journalists that I wonder how NPR can continue to characterize its activities as journalism. I don't blame Ms. Shepard; I blame NPR for enforcing a spineless policy that reminds me of the double speak so brilliantly described by George Orwell.

The simple answer is because that's what it is, based on international treaties, US law, and numerous legal precedents established in war crimes trials and other proceedings. No one is asking NPR to adjudicate this on its own; it appears the many commenters are merely asking NPR to abide by the commonly accepted legal definition without going through contortions to appease those who have manufactured a controversy for political purposes.

I note that there was never any reluctance to describe as torture John McCain's treatment as a prisoner, or that of US soldiers captured in the Korean War, until that term inconveniently became applicable to US treatment of detainees. Some basic consistency from NPR would be nice to see, rather than such obvious attempts to distort language because a made-up term is more comfortable.

Alicia Shepard, that is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. You do not deserve your position with NPR. I highly doubt that if you remain as ombudsman that I will ever again give any financial support to my local NPR station.

You do not belong in the business of journalism.

Alicia Shepard's lame milquetoast defence is yet another embarrassment to the seat she holds. It really is cowardice, pure and simple. Ms. Shepard is not an Ombudsman; she's the go-to call-girl for the indefensible.

She claims "there are two sides to the issue." Sure, the ethical, moral and legal side; and the criminal side. She says NPR has to stay "neutral."

I s'ppose if Ms. Shepard was asked whether the earth orbits the sun, or vice-versa, she would stake out a position of neutrality there, too. He said, she said, make up your own mind.

She then exhibbits woeful convoluted logic, arguing, "I'm not sure why it's so important to call something 'torture'," and proclaims it's better to provide euphemisms that "sound like" torture.

She needs to give up the ghost, and offer her seat to somebody who'll take the position and responsibilities seriously, and stop shilling and excusing criminality. NPR listeners deserve better. They deserve the truth.

For weeks I cringed every time I listened to NPR daintily tippy toe around George W. Bush's pile of crime. Today I am just amazed at what passes for professionalism, journalism and integrity at National Public Radio. To listen to Ms. Shepard's "explanation" of her actions is like watching reruns of Bush's infamous "we do 'not torture'" clarification. Orwell's prediction of American language is more amazing than his novel 1984.

For consistency, I suggest Ms. Shepard set the policy of using the former president's term of "not torture" for these torture techniques. We subject detainees to "not torture". This would be more clear than NPR's current policy.

It's not just a word. It's a crime and should be referred to as such. There is no debate on this.

Re. Bob Garfield [17]:

The personal criticisms are not only warranted, they are an imperative from any decent person. This is not he-said-she-said politics as usual. This is about the very soul and moral viability of the country, about unabashed evil and its enablers.

The euphemism 'enhanced interrogation' for torture was first used by the Nazi regime in the 1930s. We prosecuted and convicted people for putting that torture regime in place. We executed Japanese soldier for the crime of waterboarding American soldiers.

Torture is unmitigated evil, and is only good for producing false confessions and for gratifying the vile instincts of sadists and authoritarians. There is no controversy, legal or otherwise, that waterboarding is torture. The only people pretending that there is any controversy are the morally deficient and those who want to cover their crimes -- and the moral cowards who enable them. By being one of those enablers, Alicia Shepard is today's banality of evil.

Apologists for the prior administration -- including Ms. Shepard and NPR -- refuse to use the appropriate word of 'torture' because torture is both a crime and a war crime, and to use the word is to implicitly make the appropriate accusation: Bush, Cheney & Company committed crimes and war crimes (and have even publicly admitted to such). War Crime: THAT is where Ms. Shepard and NPR are refusing to go.

Instead, the Apologists -- including Ms. Shepard and NPR -- make the same choice (and use the exact same obfuscatory euphemism... a point of historical fact) as was made by the Nazi propagandists: obfuscate with ambiguity. "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" is exactly what the Nazis called their torture program, and numerous officials including top-level government lawyers were convicted of war crimes at Nuremburg for it.

Ms. Shepard and NPR have made a partisan decision to actively cover for the prior administration's crimes and war crimes with propaganda and euphemism, so they have told us what they are.

If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.

--Confucius

@ Bob Garfield:

First, thanks for an excellent interview. OTM is one of the few NPR programs that retains the general excellence that was once more typical of the network.

On the question of NPR's good faith in this matter: while not the topic of this segment, may I suggest that this might be the topic of another OTM story? How did NPR actually arrive at its decision to use the term "enhanced interrogation techniques"? How did it decide to continue to use that term when even our own government began to acknowledge that waterboarding constituted torture? And what was the origin of Ms. Shepard's blog post? Listeners and media critics have been after NPR for this particular Orwellian abuse of the language for years. What personal--or corporate--decision led her to write about it now?

In short, how does a series of such monumentally bad journalistic decisions get made? Was it mere incompetence, bad faith, or something else?

On the issue of Ms. Shepard's competence: In a terrific recent interview on PRI's The Sound of Young America, Bob Garfield and Brooke Gladstone made it clear that OTM has always ruffled a lot of feathers higher up in NPR. In the best possible way, Bob Garfield's interview of Alicia Shepard is a good example of why OTM might trouble higher ups at the network. Standing up to one's employers is always difficult and risky. I can only imagine what it must be like to do it in such a public fashion (of course, this is a model of what journalism should be). Under these circumstances, perhaps Bob Garfield's comment on this thread is his own little bit of CYA. He really wasn't setting out to attack Ms. Shepard personally. And given his position, it's understandable that he'd want to reiterate that fact. Nevertheless, I hope he understands that we in the audience might reasonably conclude on the basis of his interview (and the evidence of her own work) that Ms. Shepard is incompetent, not only as an ombudsman, but even as a flack.

"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them."

George Orwell "Politics and the English Language" 1946

What a fool. The interviewer clearly points out that EVERYONE but the criminals agree that waterboarding is torture yet she refuses to accept this. For years I've felt guilty about not giving money to NPR. No longer.

Excellent bulldogging, Mr. Garfield. Your questions clearly brought out the appalling weakness of NPR's position. If the ombudsperson's job is to represent NPR's listeners, Ms. Shepard doesn't appear to be doing it--that is obvious from reading these comments. She should be fighting NPR management on this indefensible policy.

Vote with your feet. Not another dime to NPR until this policy and this ombudsman are replaced. As a lifelong NPR financial supporter, I have implemented it.

Suggestion: Howzabout NPR uses the phrase [such and such a technique] "which members of the former Bush administration deny is Torture"? That would accurately depict the situation while fulfilling your apparent role as "Bushie position" advocate, wouldn't it?

I don't use euphemisms and I have no respect for so-called "journalists" who do.

So I have no hesitation in using useful and accurate words like "cowardly," and "disgraceful" to describe Ms. Shepard's behavior.

Henceforth the following substitute terms shall be used on NPR:

murder = lifespan reduction action

rape = disputed sexual encounter

robbery = possession reallocation

lying = creative fact manipulation

This way, NPR journalists will no longer be required to take a stand on whether a particular act is right or wrong.

@ Patrick Luck and Peter Shirley: I actually wrote my local station manager about Ms. Shepard's blog post NPR's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and said exactly this: I'd been a contributor in the past, but not a dime more until this policy changes.

I got back a long and thoughtful e-mail from the station manager that expressed strong disagreement with Shepard and NPR's policies.

That hasn't changed my mind about giving to NPR, but it does make me think that local station managers might play an important role in getting NPR to change its policy. If NPR's ombudsman refuses to act as the listeners' advocate, perhaps those who most directly rely on our donations can do so instead?

Alice Shepherd "tortures" logic and honesty, in my point of view, in the service of "neutrality".

She states that calling waterboarding "torture" is similar to calling an obstetrician who performs and abortion a "terrorist" - and states that NPR will remain "neutral" in both cases.

There's a difference, of course. The doctor is performing a legal, recognized medical procedure. The interrogator is performing an illegal procedure that has been a defined and widely practiced torture technique for centuries.

There's plenty of room for nuance and debates about what words mean to different people. But not in this case.

Ms. Shepard's "neutrality" is in fact a posture of deceptive cowardice. What a shame that NPR has descended into word games of this kind.

The NPR policy being discussed here is just a typical example of what journalism, broadly including NPR (sadly) has become over the last decade or so: Avoid any possibility of offending establishment thinking by presenting both 'sides' of a topic regardless of how intellectually dishonest (or preposterous) one of the 'sides' is. This torture "debate" is perfect in that regard: "enhanced interrogation techniques which some critics call torture". Ms. Shepard, as mouthpiece for NPR management, is just conforming to today's journalism norms: toe the company line especially when that means avoiding statements of fact that are potentially uncomfortable for management. 30 years of journalism experience? I think Ms. Shepard has lost her way (along with most of her profession).

I've been a daily listener of NPR for over 20 years. I used to be able to count on NPR for in-depth, factual and honest reporting. I also used to contribute regularly to my local public radio stations. I stopped about 5 years ago because the value of NPR's reporting has sunk to the level of any (and all) MSM news organizations. The torture topic is just the current example.

How is this woman representing us, the listeners? Please get a new ombusman.

As several others have pointed out above, this is continuing evidence of our slide into an Orwellian dystopia. Words mean things. Different words carry strikingly different connotations. To dispute the truth and sow confusion has unfortunately been a goal of national politicians for far too long. The media has heretofore been an accomplice mainly to the extent that they decide which stories are "newsworthy", but this is bringing propagandizing in America to a new level.

If the whole world agreed that the sky was blue, and the Bush administration called it yellow, the truth is not somewhere in the middle-- they sky is not, in fact, green. As a journalist, you should not report the news as though the truth is always in the middle- you should have the gumption to say that the whole world views this one way, with the exception of a few war criminals that are desperately trying to manufacture cover for themselves. To report the news any other way is dishonest, which is why there's such an uproar among your listeners on this topic.

Ms. Shepard's argument is actually one step worse than reporting the truth in the middle, she's taking the Bush Administration's side in the debate. "Torture" is abhorrent (or should be), "enhanced interrogation techniques" sound faintly positive, and "pouring water down someone's nose and throat for 20 seconds" completely minimizes the distress and horror of those actions. Perhaps Ms. Shepard would be willing to undergo waterboarding, and then see if she would still be loath to describe it as torture?

Shepard claims that to use the word 'torture' is 'taking sides'. Since 'enhanced interrogation techniques' is the former Bush administration's term for these inhumane acts, is it not taking sides to insist on using this doublespeak phrase, as the interviewer asked her? Ms. Shepard's defense of her decision --that journalism must use 'neutral' language --is truly disingenuous at best. Journalism is NOT neutral -- that is the conservative right's desire so that their acts (killing doctors, torturing prisoners, wiretapping citizens) will be presented as moral equivalents to their opposites. It is shameful that NPR has capitulated to this right wing definition of media "neutrality". Real journalism interprets, not just describes, events, and certainly not in 'neutral' tones that allow inhumane activities to masquerade as just another kind of normal behavior.

NPR and Alicia Shepard are wrong. "Reporting the facts" is not about using euphemisms ....it is exactly the opposite. You want the listener to evaluate? Then, at the very least, use BOTH terminologies in the same sentence EVERY TIME. Although that seems ridiculous, that would supposedly serve your "purpose" of allowing the listener to evaluate.

You see, we learned what torture was as children....it is self evident. You don't create journalistic detachment by mis-reporting. You are assisting and abetting the effort to obfuscate.

NPR, we have every reason and right to direct our dismay and outrage toward your management position, and to expect better from you......far better. You are willing to accept our donations, but, perhaps inconveniently, we are still thinkers. An omsbudsman supposedly represents us. That is patently untrue in this case.

If the ombudsperson's job is to represent NPR's listeners, Ms. Shepard doesn't appear to be doing it. Her defense of the position using the word "torture" makes very little sense. She continues to say that there is a spirited defense however, the highest military judge in the land appointed bu GWB said that the combined effects of enhanced interrogation amounted to torture. This an official statement from a objective definitive source, yet Mrs Shepard continues to state that there is a spirited defense? That is like saying that the "enemy combatants" where being prosecuted being given all protection under the Constitution of the US. In that case the Supreme court has shown ruling after ruling that the Military Tribunal for Enemy combatants has constitutional issues unresolved. The GWB admin told the American people that they were using techniques which did not violate any intnat'l treaty or the constitution but we have had countless officials tell the press that the techniques used amounted to torture, including the top military official in the land in Susan J. Crawford.

Her defense is defenseless and NPR's policy should change and come in line with the facts on the ground.

Why has she not been fired? Obviously NPR has no more accountability for facilitating war crimes than the administration.

Because there are so many loaded criminal legal terms, I applaud NPR for respecting their sanitization so as not to offend. I have a few more terms to sanitize :

rape : enhanced insistent seduction

murder: unapproved planned ending of life

child abuse : enhanced harsh discipline

robbery/theft/blackmail/extortion : forced gifting

perjury : oath differing testimony

What's the big deal in using the word torture? It is ILLEGAL- as MS. Shepard mentioned. The illegality of torture triggers a whole host of legal imperatives to investigate and prosecute. That's why the Bush Administration ( and their enablers like Ms. Shepard and NPR ) won't use the word.

I never thought I would see NPR engaging in such invidious and meretricious hypocrisy. What a falling off was there.

BH @ 76

The tortured Orwellian language reminds me of a government death squad in apartheid-era South Africa that called itself the "Civil Cooperation Bureau."

After listiening to Ms. Shepard's vomitous ecuse, I have no doubts whatsoever that if death squads were operating under the direction of GWB, that she'd trot out the same trite "two sides to every story" excuse.

Time to find a new ombudsman, at least one that is able to use the appropriate words to detail the events of our times rather than hiding them behind convoluted phrases. As listeners of NPR, all we can do is stop donating to NPR for the time being.

Ms. Shepard,

When you find yourself in a hole, the last thing you should do is continue to dig. At this point, you are setting yourself as the perfect example of journalistic malpractice. As feeble as your original argument was, this vacuous "explanation" was even worse. If you have a shred of dignity remaining, you would do well to either recant everything you have stated in this situation and admit you were wrong, or hand in your resignation.

Thanks.

Actually, I have now committed myself to avoiding any donations to NPR until they replace Ms. Shepard with someone who takes her job seriously and respects even the most basic standards of good journalism.

The fact that NPR pays Shepard to be an "ombudsman" will give me serious pause the next time I consider donating to NPR. Her justification for her position is incredibly weak, to put it kindly, and the fact that she won't go on other shows like Glenn Greenwald's to defend it shows she is aware of this. Shame on her.

Interesting that this "not characterizing things" applies only in the United States. Or does NPR intend to talk about Iran's shameful use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" against its protesting citizens? Of course not. Torture is only an "enhanced interrogation" when *we're* doing it. If they really believed this policy, they'd have to tiptoe around the behavior of every dictatorship on Earth.

Why not be a little more honest and say, "We're terrified of being accused of bias, so we're going to let the people responsible for instigating torture by the US government tell us how we can talk about it."

The kind of journalism makes would-be torturers breathe much easier knowing that what they do won't be "characterized" by the spineless lot of morons who control our mainstream media. She admits that embracing euphemisms like "enhanced technique" validates the Bush administration position, and yet she doesn't want to be seen as taking sides??? What a load of crap. Thirty years experience as a journalist and to her that means torturers must be allowed to define the terms of the debate? Oh, poor torturers, we don't want to be unfair to you!!!

Also, by using the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques," Shephard is taking a "position" in this "debate."

I'm very dissapointed in NPR on this one. The media should question the spin offered by those in power, not to uncritially buy in to it.

Ms. Shepard? Are you reading these comments? Are you beginning to "get it"?? Torture is illegal. The US Government condoned torture. Calling torture something other than what it is CONDONES it further and makes it "OK". It leads to conversations about "does it work" or "when is it OK" or "did it save lives", etc., etc. Instead, the conversation SHOULD be about "how will our government be held accountable and how do we prevent this from happening again"? I second the motion(s) made above...OTM should be discussing this from the angle of: how is NPR perpetuating the meme about the efficacy of "enhanced interrogation techniques".

seems NPR had no problem using the term "freedom fighters" when it was the Reagan-approved Contras who were doing the terrorizing.

Please play this interview again during pledge week. I need to be reminded why I'll never give you another cent.

I've been meaning to comment here since I heard this while riding in the car on the weekend.

Bob Garfield is to be commended -- for doing Ms. Shepard's job and representing the listeners while she acted as a PR flack for a questionable, one is tempted to say disingenuous, NPR policy. Waterboarding has been torture for hundreds of years, right up until the wordsmiths in the Bush administration changed its name from "the water torture" ( as distinct from "Chinese water torture") or "waterboard torture" to simply "waterboarding", a form of "enhanced interrogation".

Playing games with words and semantics has become a key tactic of the Republicans over the years and acquiescing to it is taking a side.

If there is any controversy over the language, one would have thought that the ombudsman's job would have been to ask hard questions of NPR management or on-air talent, perhaps from the positions of different sets of listeners, to insure that our concerns were heard. Ms. Shepard abdicated her role for that of apologist.

I only hope that the role of ombudsman will once again be filled. Whoever takes the job should follow Bob Garfield's lead in challenging Ms. Shepard and the other spokesmen for NPR's management.

Bravo, sir. Shame on you, Ms. Shepard.

As vacuous and distressing as the ombudsman's comments are, I thought Bob Garfield did a superb job in this very brief interview.

This was a disgrace - what are they really thinking. They have no problem calling it torture when any other country does it, but when the US does it somehow it is justified? I have never heard such a pathetic excuse - she should be removed and replaced by someone willing to do her job.