Reuters Tries To Explain Away Its Refusal To Call Torture 'Torture'

from the the-view-from-nowhere dept

We recently pointed out that in a Reuters news report about the pending (and ultimately delayed) release of the declassified executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's $40 million report on the CIA's torture program, Reuters reporter Patricia Zengerle refused to call the torture program "torture" instead describing it as "physically stressful interrogation techniques" within the following context:

Human rights activists and many politicians have labeled as "torture" some of the physically stressful interrogation techniques, such as water boarding - or simulated drowning - that were authorized under former President George W. Bush.

We then went on to point out how odd it is that Zengerle apparently can't come to call it torture herself, given that by pretty much every definition out there, including the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture (not to mention President Obama himself) have defined the practices as "torture."

Journalism professor Jay Rosen read the story and decided to ask Zengerle and Reuters about it. Rosen is the guy who has helped to highlight and call out this weak form of journalism known as "the view from nowhere" in which reporters refuse to actually say what something is, preferring to avoid any such claim. At best, such journalists feel the need to find someone to quote to call something what it is, rather than saying so themselves. Zengerle told Rosen he needed to talk to Reuters PR people, which was reasonably perplexing. Since when do journalists take their orders from PR?

Nonetheless, Rosen did exactly that. At first he was referred to Reuters' "Handbook of Journalism" which is the organization's style guide. Except, as Rosen noted, there doesn't appear to be anything in there concerning whether or not Reuters reporters can call torture "torture." In response, the PR person told him:

We have no formal policy regarding the designation of certain practices as torture. Our approach, in general, is to factually describe a technique -- such as waterboarding -- and attribute the characterization of it as torture to credible sources.

That is... an unsatisfactory answer to say the least. The idea, of course, (as one of our commenters on the story noted) is to "stay away from emotionally charged words." But that's not reporting. That's a cop out. Is torture an emotionally charged word? Possibly, but it's also accurate. It's not debatable. Under every definition of torture, practices like waterboarding fit. When reporters like Zengerle take the cheap way out, they actually make things even worse. Calling torture like waterboarding "physically stressful interrogation techniques," it may avoid the "emotionally charged" term of "torture," but it does a disservice to readers by underplay what is really happening when someone is waterboarded.

A reporter should be accurately reporting the facts. And that means when something is torture, they should call it torture.

When a Reuters PR person tries to brush this aside by arguing that Zengerle "factually described a technique," she's not telling the truth. Calling waterboarding and other CIA torture techniques as merely "physically stressful" is an outright misrepresentation of the fact that these techniques -- submitting someone to severe mental or physical pain for the purpose of obtaining information -- is the very definition of torture. Walking up a big hill may be "physically stressful." Waterboarding is not merely physically stressful. It's torture. Reuters does a disservice to truth in pretending otherwise.

Filed Under: jay rosen, journalism, patricia zengerle, style guide, torture, view from nowhere, waterboarding
Companies: reuters

Reuters Downplays CIA Torture As Merely 'Physically Stressful Interrogation Techniques'

from the torturing-the-english-language dept

We recently wrote about the ongoing delays in releasing a (heavily redacted) executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the CIA's torture regime following 9/11. That was linked to a Reuters story about how the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee still can't agree on what to redact. However, I'd totally missed a line at the end of that Reuters piece that Kevin Gosztola calls to our attention. It's where Reuters reporter Patricia Zengerle decides to not call torture "torture," but rather "physically stressful interrogation."

Human rights activists and many politicians have labeled as "torture" some of the physically stressful interrogation techniques, such as water boarding - or simulated drowning - that were authorized under former President George W. Bush.

This is a cheap cop out by Reuters and Zengerle. Waterboarding is torture. A month ago, the NY Times finally got around to admitting that waterboarding and the other interrogation techniques used by the CIA were torture and that it would call it that in the future. Reuters should get with the program (also known as the English language). It's the "view from nowhere" to pull the "well, some human rights activists call it torture." It is torture. It is not just a few human rights activists saying this. It is widely accepted as torture. The UN has said it is torture, and Reuters reporters should know that because that article is from Reuters.

Not only that, but it's pretty clearly torture under US law which defines it as:

“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;

The act further says that "severe mental pain or suffering" includes "the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering" and "the threat of imminent death." Waterboarding fits both those classifications. It makes the brain think that you're drowning. It is severe pain and suffering and makes those experiencing it think they are about to die.

If you don't like the US law, how about the Geneva Convention, which says that parties are "prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands" and further defines "torture or inhuman treatment" as including "willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."

And if that's not enough, we have the UN Convention Against Torture, which the US has both signed and ratified, which clearly notes:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

There is no legitimate argument that the activities carried out by the CIA go beyond "physically stressful interrogation techniques." The CIA engaged in torture. And Reuters can (and should) call it that.

Filed Under: cia, interrogation, journalism, patricia zengerle, physically stressful, torture, waterboarding
Companies: reuters