NPR ombudsman Shepard responds

NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard has responded to my item of last week in which I criticized her for defending NPR's policy of refusing to refer to waterboarding as "torture." She writes:

Yes, President Obama and AG Eric Holder have said that waterboarding was torture. I'd personally call it torture. But if you were an editor at the Globe, would you say that someone tortured another person? Or would you want to use a direct or indirect quote, i.e., "John Smith said the guard tortured him"?

I'm not trying to say what is and is not torture, but is every abuse classified as torture now or are there degrees? When a police officer throws a suspect to the ground and handcuffs them, is that torture or simply abuse?

Would it be better to, say, describe the technique and then say some call it torture? I do not think enhanced interrogation techniques is acceptable either. That's why I come down on describing the technique and adding that some call it torture.

Shepard asks, so I'll attempt a few answers.

I'm not sure what Shepard thinks there is to gain by skiing down the slippery slope from waterboarding to getting rough with a suspect during an arrest. In my original item, I strictly limited my remarks to waterboarding, recognized as torture by just about everyone on the planet.

The opinions of Obama and Holder are entirely unnecessary to determining whether waterboarding is torture.

As John McCain and others have pointed out, the United States executed several Japanese military officers for waterboarding American prisoners of war after World War II. And as I wrote last week, if NPR really can't bring itself to use the T-word, perhaps it can describe waterboarding as "an interrogation technique once considered so heinous by the United States that it hanged Japanese officers for doing it to Americans."

So yes, if I were an editor at the Boston Globe, you're damn right I would refer to waterboarding as torture. That seems about as solid as referring to oil as a fossil fuel, or baseball as a sport. By eschewing the term "torture" to describe a practice that the entire international community regards as such, NPR is not being neutral. Rather, it is embracing a euphemism that places the network squarely on the side of the torturers and their enablers.

NPR should not use enhanced interrogation techniques on the English language.

Thursday update: I was not as precise as I wanted to be when I wrote about "everyone on the planet," as I was in a rush and had lousy Internet access. Last week, Bob Garfield of "On the Media" interviewed Shepard and made the point I was trying to make:

The U.N.'s High Commissioner for Human Rights says that waterboarding is torture. The International Committee of the Red Cross have called what the U.S. did "torture." Waterboarding is unambiguously in violation of the International Convention on Torture, which has been ratified by 140-some countries.

The United States is among those 140 countries, but, as the Associated Press reported in 2002, the Bush administration sought to block enforcement of the measure when inspectors wanted to visit Guantánamo.

Torture is not only a moral problem, but it has a precise legal meaning that most definitely encompasses waterboarding.

Calling torture torture

Alicia Shepard is as sharp a media observer as they come. A longtime writer for the American Journalism Review and the author of "Woodward and Bernstein: Life in the Shadow of Watergate," she is a serious and respected voice.

That said, I'm scratching my head over how wrong Shepard gets it on NPR's refusal to use the term "torture" to describe the "enhanced interrogation techniques" practiced during the Bush years. Shepard, now NPR's ombudsman, writes:

I recognize that it's frustrating for some listeners to have NPR not use the word torture to describe certain practices that seem barbaric. But the role of a news organization is not to choose sides in this or any debate. People have different definitions of torture and different feelings about what constitutes torture. NPR's job is to give listeners all perspectives, and present the news as detailed as possible and put it in context.

Let's forget "certain practices" and focus on just one: waterboarding, long recognized as torture. In November 2007, Sen. John McCain pointed out that the United States executed Japanese officers after World War II for waterboarding American prisoners of war.

And when McCain was challenged, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Web site PolitiFact.com investigated McCain's assertion. Its conclusion: McCain was right — a number of Japanese officers were hanged, and others were sentenced to long prison terms, because they had engaged in waterboarding.

Shepard writes that rather than describing waterboarding as torture, it makes more sense just to say what happened: "To me, it makes more sense to describe the techniques and skip the characterization.... A basic rule of vivid writing is: 'Show, Don't Tell.'"

All right. Perhaps NPR can eschew the T-word and instead describe waterboarding as "an interrogation technique once considered so heinous by the United States that it hanged Japanese officers for doing it to Americans."

Will Hoyt write about the "Note to Readers"?

Here's part of what New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt wrote about the paper's report on John McCain's non-affair last Feb. 24:

A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

Given that this is a libel settlement we're talking about, Hoyt is unlikely to call the Times' "A Note to Readers" for what it is. But unless he's changed his mind, we know what he's thinking.

The Times' unromantic "Note to Readers"

From the New York Times' "A Note to Readers," published today as part of its libel-suit settlement with lobbyist Vicki Iseman:

The article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain ...

From the Feb. 21 story at issue:

Convinced the relationship [with Iseman] had become romantic, some of his [McCain's] top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

Help me out here.

Wednesday morning odds and ends

A few items for your consideration:

• Why didn't the Illinois legislature use the last few weeks to pass an emergency bill taking away Gov. Rod Blagojevich's power to fill the Senate vacancy, and then do it again over his veto? Given that failure, I can't imagine how anyone can stop Blago's choice, Roland Burris, from being seated.
• Lobbyist Vicki Iseman's libel suit against the New York Times may be a classic case of a story that's accurate but not true. No doubt the Times was accurate in reporting that anonymous former aides to John McCain had worried eight years ago that he might be having an affair with Iseman. But when you put it that way, you can understand why she's suing.
• Adam Reilly does a nice job of deconstructing Boston Magazine editor James Burnett's weirdly obsequious interview with Mike Barnicle. But I'd love to hear from Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, a longtime Barnicle nemesis with whom Barnicle now claims to have kissed and made up. That would be pretty damn interesting.
• D'oh! When I recently wrote that I like Globe columnist Bob Ryan on New England Sports Network, I didn't realize his show, "Globe 10.0," had been canceled. You certainly wouldn't know it from the NESN Web site. Truth be told, I only watched it during baseball season. But it was good! Really!
  

William Ayers reconsidered

In my latest for the Guardian, I argue that the McCain-Palin campaign's careless, ugly lies about Barack Obama and William Ayers did not merely smear Obama — they also smeared Ayers, a founder of the radical Weather Underground movement in the 1960s.

There is no evidence that the Weather Underground ever killed or injured anyone other than themselves. For instance, despite what you may have heard, Katherine Ann Power and Susan Saxe, the radicals who were responsible for the 1970 death of Boston police officer Walter Schroeder, were not affiliated with the group.

Now, despite his McCarthyite tactics, John McCain has been welcomed back into polite society, while the Ayers family must content with death threats that Ayers himself says have only escalated since Election Day.

Friends like Sarah Palin's

In my latest for the Guardian, I salute John McCain for flying one last mission on behalf of his country. The McCain campaign-fueled orgy of anonymous recriminations over Sarah Palin has proved in a way nothing else could that the media had little to do with bringing down the Republican ticket.

Obama wins, a bit later than expected

In an instant-reaction piece for the Guardian, I look at Barack Obama's victory - which came somewhat later than might have been expected based on the pre-election polls, but which proved to be decisive enough.

Nice speech by John McCain. Obama's up in a few minutes.

If exit polls were votes

Then Obama would be headed for a huge victory. Actually, he wouldn't, as President Kerry would be standing for re-election. So let's wait and see.

McCain's misleading 401(k) accusation

I nearly choked on my cereal when I read in the Boston Globe this morning that John McCain had accused Barack Obama [Note: McCain may not have been specifically referring to Obama; see update below] of proposing to tax individual retirement accounts. Scott Helman and Sasha Issenberg write:

"Watch out, they're even talking about taxing your 401(k) contributions," McCain said at Pittsburgh International Airport. "I'm going to protect people's retirement, not tax it. I'm going to protect Social Security. I'm going to protect Medicare."

I've done some quick research, and, as best as I can tell, McCain's charge is not true. The slightly longer version is that he's building assumptions upon assumptions, based in part on a mistake, and accepting the rhetoric of an anti-tax think tank as to what theoretical effect Obama's tax proposals might have on 401(k)s.

According to the nonpartisan watchdog site FactCheck.org, McCain has been making this accusation off and on since last spring. I have to confess that I hadn't been aware of it until now. FactCheck says McCain is staking his claim on a "giant blunder," latching on to Obama's proposal to raise the capital-gains tax. But 401(k) accounts allow you to invest your money tax-free, and are taxed as ordinary income when you reach retirement age and begin to withdraw money. The capital-gains tax has nothing to do with 401(k)s.

Some on the right argue that raising taxes the capital-gains tax and corporate income taxes will hurt 401(k)s because low taxes are always good for business and high taxes are always bad. That's the case made by Deroy Murdock at Human Events, who points to a calculator on the Web site of Americans for Tax Reform that shows the value of your 401(k) rising under McCain and shrinking under Obama. I haven't tried it, but it is transparently based on the assumption that the economy will do better with McCain as president than Obama.

Americans for Tax Reform, by the way, is a vehicle for anti-tax radical Grover Norquist, famous for once having said, "My goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

Bottom line: McCain's accusation is false through and through misleading. We're all familiar with the trickle-down arguments on which it is based. But if you're McCain, it sounds so much better to say that Obama wants to tax the 401(k)s of "policemen, firefighters, nurses," as he did last April, than it does to say ordinary people might suffer some theoretical harm if Obama raises taxes on ExxonMobil.

Update: Mike from Norwell reports that there are some congressional Democrats who are proposing a tax on 401(k) accounts. Not Obama's proposal, and, needless to say, he would be insane to go along with it. He is not insane. But I've toned down the headline.

The gap widens

Every time I go to the Real Clear Politics composite poll average, the gap widens. It's now Obama 51.2 percent, McCain 44.2 percent.

Jumping ugly with Joe the Plumber

Joe the Plumber: "There's too many questions with Barack Obama and his loyalty to our country, and I question that greatly.... His ideology is completely different than what democracy stands for."

Pretty nasty stuff. Is the McCain campaign going to say anything?

What starts with the letter "M"?

From CNN:

POLK CITY, Florida (CNN) — At a boisterous Sarah Palin rally in Polk City, Florida on Saturday afternoon, one name was surprisingly absent from the campaign décor — John McCain's.... [T]he GOP nominee's name was literally nowhere to be found on any of the official campaign signage distributed to supporters at the event.

Literally! Oh, wait — never mind. (Via Jay Rosen's Twitter feed.)

Covering up for both candidates

Why would the Los Angeles Times accept a videotape of Barack Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi under the condition that the paper not actually show it to anyone? Are the editors in the business of reporting news, or do they like collecting stuff for their own personal amusement?

And why would the Times then turn around and report on John McCain's criticisms without noting that McCain helped funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to Khalidi?

I understand that everyone at the LA Times is spending most of their waking hours faxing out their résumés, but this is ridiculous. I guess this is the new definition of even-handed journalism: covering up for both candidates.

In search of the fat lady

In my latest for the Guardian, I argue that liberals would be nuts if they start banking on an Obama victory. There are just too many things that could go wrong: Republican-led voter suppression, the Bradley effect and the possibility that the McCain campaign's fear-and-smear efforts will finally catch fire.

The Republicans' Palin problem

Strip away all the side issues (and there are many, and they are important), and the essence of Sarah Palin is this: She is an extraordinarily gifted political performer. And she knows nothing — zippo — about the national and international issues with which any national political figure needs to be conversant.

Which brings me to the latest on the increasingly public mud-slinging between the Palin and McCain camps, written up in loving detail by the Politico's Ben Smith. Given her freakish and unwarranted self-confidence, it's not surprising that she believes she could talk her way out of the mess she's in if only her handlers would let her. And given her long string of boneheaded (and worse) statements, it's not surprising that the McCainiacs just want her to shut up.

It is nothing short of astounding that Palin's supporters, according to Smith, point to the Katie Couric interview as something that was mishandled by the McCain forces. We all saw Palin babble about how Alaska's proximity to Russia has given her foreign-policy experience — a softball do-over from Couric, given that Palin had had time to think about it after answering Charlie Gibson's identical question the same idiotic way. We all saw that she couldn't even say what she reads, leading to the not-unreasonable conclusion that she doesn't.

If Barack Obama wins on Nov. 4, it's going to be a long winter for the Republican Party. Among the party's many problems is that Palin has signaled she intends to be a player. Given that she has what's left of the Republican base in her thrall, and that she is a huge negative among everyone else, Palin, for Democrats, may be the gift that keeps on giving.

How McCain is blowing it

If Barack Obama wins the presidential election, he'll be able to thank John McCain for embracing the Republican right just as it was losing its strangehold on American politics. Or so I say in the Guardian.

Double digits

Everyone being polled could be lying. John McCain could pull Osama bin Laden's head out of a bag and hold it up before the TV cameras the weekend before the election. Sarah Palin could be replaced on the Republican ticket by Warren Buffet, who — along with Colin Powell — will renounce his previous endorsement of Barack Obama. So no predictions from me.

But good Lord. John Zogby, whose methodology may understate support for Barack Obama, now has him leading McCain by 10 points, 52 percent to 42 percent. And Pew has Obama up by 14 points among both registered voters (52 percent to 38 percent) and likely voters (53 percent to 39 percent).

Posts on polls are kind of useless, and I apologize. But the campaign has taken over most of my brain cells. I thought it was interesting that what seemed like a slight shift toward McCain a few days ago appears to have been stopped and is now being reversed.

I still think it's going to be close.

Dial "Z" for poll numbers

I'm allergic to math, but even I can understand why Barack Obama's eight-point lead in the Zogby tracking poll is bigger than it looks.

Zogby has consistently had John McCain doing better than in many other polls. As Nate Silver explains, it's because Zogby weights party affiliation based on exit polls from the previous election.

So if the electorate is more Democratic today than it was in 2004 — and it is, by quite a bit — then Obama's lead is actually understated by Zogby. That is, if the tracking poll is accurate in the first place, which is always a question worth asking.

Slime in historical context

Josh Marshall writes: "I don't think there's any question that McCain's is the dirtiest and most dishonest campaign, certainly in the last 35 years and possibly going much further back into the early 20th century."

By invoking the 35-year rule, Marshall is leaving open the possibility that Richard Nixon's re-election effort in 1972 was worse. I'd agree with that. Worse than anything since? Yes, I think so. The worst I can remember George W. Bush doing against Al Gore was taking credit for a children's health measure in Texas that had passed over his veto. George H.W. Bush ran some notably dirty campaigns in 1988 and '92, but I think McCain has set a new standard.

Last night Mrs. Media Nation and Media Nation Jr. came back from a trip to the in-laws and reported that several members of the family had asserted that Barack Obama is "a terrorist." Not even that he "pals around with terrorists."

You can argue all day that neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin has said anything quite that breathtakingly brash. But they set it in motion, and let pre-existings fears about a black man with a Muslim-sounding name do the rest.