Making ‘Torture’ Impossible
When the Washington Post (12/9/14) described on the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the treatment of prisoners at CIA “black sites,” it said it documented “harsh interrogation measures,” “painful procedures” and even “seemingly arbitrary violence.” But what it didn’t say was that this treatment was “torture”—except when saying it was “deemed torture by program critics including President Obama.” And that was no accident.
In a Post story (12/9/14) about the “old debate” about torture terminology, Philip Bump quotes the justification Cameron Barr (then national security editor, now national editor) gave to Brian Stelter (7/2/10) in 2010: “After the use of the term ‘torture’ became contentious, we decided that we wouldn’t use it in our voice to describe waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration.”
Since admitting to torturing is confessing to a crime, no one is ever likely to admit to having tortured—so it will always remain “contentious,” at least when ordered by Washington officials. With one simple decision, the Post has made it next to impossible for the US to commit “torture”—a power that human rights groups can only dream of.
Why Doesn’t War Work?
ABC’s Cecilia Vega (11/16/14), after a report of another beheading by ISIS in Syria, asked: “These numbers, they are absolutely staggering: about 800 airstrikes so far against ISIS. Why isn’t this working?” The assumption is that dropping bombs ought to “work,” and that its failure to produce positive results is puzzling. This expectation should be puzzling to anyone who has paid attention to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc.
In the specific case of ISIS, there’s a good argument that its videotaped killings are designed to deliberately provoke Western attacks, since foreign bombs are a potent recruiting tool (Intercept, 9/17/14). If that’s the strategy, the answer to “Why isn’t this working?” is, “It is—for ISIS.”
Missing ‘Child’
“Palestinian Shot by Israeli Troops at Gaza Border,” read the New York Times headline (11/16/14). One aspect of the story the headline managed to omit: That Palestinian was a 10-year-old boy.
CNN: Climate Change Is Undeniable, So Here’s a Denier
Brian Stelter gives climate denier John Coleman a CNN platform.
CNN Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter (11/2/14) was refreshingly direct about climate change on his November 2 show: “I don’t think there are two equal sides to climate change. The scientific consensus is that it’s real. The debate is over what to do about it. And the press has to be careful about creating this notion of sides.”
Unfortunately, Stelter said this as an introduction to a debate about whether there’s any such thing as climate change, pitting retired TV weather forecaster John Coleman, who said human-caused climate change was a “whole lot of baloney,” against Weather Channel CEO David Kenney, who disagreed.
The day this segment aired, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, representing the work of thousands of scientists, released a new report, which the New York Times (11/2/14) called its “Starkest Warning Yet on Global Warming”; “Effects of Climate Change ‘Irreversible,’ UN Panel Warns in Report,” was how the Washington Post (11/2/14) played it. It didn’t get any coverage on the Sunday chat shows, though—making this CNN segment, pitting a former TV personality with a journalism degree against a media executive, one of the few discussions of climate change on TV news that day.
The Wrath of Warren
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote a short blog post (11/19/14) explaining why she opposed the nomination of Antonio Weiss—an adviser on corporate mergers—to a consumer-protection position at the Treasury Department. New York Times business columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin, noted for his Wall Street cheerleading (FAIR Blog, 5/24/11, 10/4/11), predictably wrote a piece (11/24/14) defending Weiss, and criticizing Warren’s “rage” and “wrath”—neither of which were particularly evident in her post.
After a number of off-the-wall complaints—Warren shouldn’t oppose Weiss, since he’d contributed money to a literary magazine?—Sorkin offered the senator some advice: “It is true that Mr. Weiss doesn’t have a lot of experience in the regulatory arena, and at least part of the role he is nominated for involves carrying out the remaining parts of the Dodd/Frank overhaul law…. Ms. Warren might be more persuasive if she focused on those issues.”
If only Warren had focused on Weiss’ lack of regulatory experience. Oh, wait—it was actually the first problem she mentioned: “That raises the first issue. Weiss has spent most of his career working on international transactions…. Neither his background nor his professional experience makes him qualified to oversee consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at the Treasury.”
Investigating, Sharing and Monetizing
The Cincinnati Enquirer’s ad for an investigative reporter (Romenesko, 12/9/14) had some unusual specifications: Candidates had to be “comfortable sharing some personal information” to “create a personal connection” to their “focus” of readers aged 25 to 45—and with “working” with an “advertising partner to grow and monetize the 25 to 45 audience.”
Enquirer editor Carolyn Washburn explained to Romenesko that the ad’s “expectation” was part of all beat job descriptions: Sales reps and reporters should “share insights” and “make introductions for each other…that may be helpful.” But aren’t some of those advertisers potential sources? Yes, “many of those organizations are both advertisers and sources. And many of those organizations are trying to grow their reach among 25-45 year olds in the community just as we are.”
Reporters’ profit-driven collaboration with advertisers who are also sources needn’t “hurt the newsroom or readers at all,” Washburn insisted. And anyway, reporters are free to “raise questions if they are ever uncomfortable or uncertain.” It’s not hard to imagine what kind of answers they’re likely to get.
Andrea Tantaros
America the Awesome
“The United States of America is awesome. We are awesome. But we’ve had this discussion. We’ve closed the book on it, and we stopped doing it. The reason they want the discussion is not to show how awesome we are. This administration wants to have this discussion to show us how we’re not awesome.”
—Fox News’ Andrea Tantaros (12/9/14) on the Senate Intelligence torture report
