Scott Horton asks an important question: why is the media so squeamish about using the word torture to describe actions by the United States government, but not to similar actions carried out by others? Why the double standard? Horton:
“I discovered that when I gave interviews to major media on this subject, any time I used the word “torture” with reference to these techniques, the interview passage would not be used. At one point I was informed by a cable news network that “we put this on international, because we can’t use that word on the domestic feed.” “That word” was torture. I was coached or told that the words “coercive interrogation technique” were fine, but “torture” was a red light. Why? The Administration objected vehemently to the use of this word. After all, President Bush has gone before the cameras and stated more than three dozen times “We do not torture.” By using the T-word, I was told, I was challenging the honesty of the president. You just couldn’t do that.
In early 2005, I took a bit of time to go through one newspaper—The New York Times—to examine its use of the word “torture”. I found that the word “torture” was regularly used to described a neighbor who played his stereo too loud, or some similar minor nuisance. Also the word “torture” could be used routinely to describe techniques used by foreign powers which were hostile to the United States. But the style rule seemed very clear: it could not be used in reporting associated with anything the Bush Administration was doing.”
He goes on to talk about the treatment of the “Taxi to the Dark Side” documentary:
“When “Taxi” was done, it was shown to broad acclaim at the Tribeca Film Festival, where it was recognized as best documentary. Discovery expressed a strong interest in the product and stepped up to acquire it. Then strange things started happening. The MPAA raised objections to the poster for the film because it showed a prisoner who was hooded, which is of course the standard practice for the US in transporting prisoners. MPAA said it had ethical reservations about showing a prisoner with a hood, that this suggested torture or abuse, and was inappropriate. Of course, that was the exact point. This was a documentary, not an entertainment piece. After weeks of wrangling the MPAA receded. Then we learned that Discovery, which had talked about transmission of the film in the spring, had decided to simply put it on the shelf. The film was “too controversial,” they said. What they meant was that the White House would take offense from it.”
This is the same media that cheered on the Iraq war in 2003, the same media that would rather focus on the antics of Britney Spears than talk about what is happening in places like Palestine, Kenya, Burma…. the same media that plants the faces of missing white girls all over the airwaves but will not show any casualties from the Iraq war on the screen. Sure, the media loves some public figures, and hates others. But it will never dare challenge the ur-myth that America is only ever a force for good in the world, the ultimate Calvinist underpinning of current foreign policy. This myth of course, stays within its own borders. The cable news companies seem quote happy to honestly report on issues like torture outside the bubble…
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In