Comments on: Bordering on Accuracy about Torture http://citmedia.org/blog/2009/01/05/bordering-on-accuracy-about-torture/ Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:40:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jon Garfunkel http://citmedia.org/blog/2009/01/05/bordering-on-accuracy-about-torture/comment-page-1/#comment-2910 Jon Garfunkel Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:09:42 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1632#comment-2910 According to the Atlantic, Joel may <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901/new-york-times" rel="nofollow">get his wish</a>. Torture? I'd worry about solvency... According to the Atlantic, Joel may get his wish.

Torture? I’d worry about solvency…

]]> By: Joel http://citmedia.org/blog/2009/01/05/bordering-on-accuracy-about-torture/comment-page-1/#comment-2909 Joel Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:22:12 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1632#comment-2909 Dan, I agree with you, but I'm not "holding my breath." The NYTimes never retracted their false reporting on "The Gulf of Tonkin Incident." And, just yesterday, they gave John Bolton and John Yoo a platform on their op-ed page. Their real motto is: "All the news we see fit to print." Big Media still casts a spell on our society, but it's weakening. Yours in Digital Justice, Joel Dan,

I agree with you, but I’m not “holding my breath.”

The NYTimes never retracted their false reporting on “The Gulf of Tonkin Incident.” And, just yesterday, they gave John Bolton and John Yoo a platform on their op-ed page. Their real motto is: “All the news we see fit to print.”

Big Media still casts a spell on our society, but it’s weakening.

Yours in Digital Justice,
Joel

]]> By: Jon Garfunkel http://citmedia.org/blog/2009/01/05/bordering-on-accuracy-about-torture/comment-page-1/#comment-2905 Jon Garfunkel Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:41:47 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1632#comment-2905 And people take you so literally here. These are the references from the article that Collins points to: <blockquote> "The maladies, said Mr. Iqbal, 31, a professional reader of the Koran, are the result of a gantlet of torture..." article: "The Pentagon and C.I.A. deny using torture..." CIA Spokesman: "...The United States does not conduct or condone torture." Iqbal: "Then they make me naked, they torture me." article "the Egyptians tortured him with electric shocks, [Iqpal] said." </blockquote> In each of these instances, "torture" is attributed to a speaker. I don't think there was ever a doubt that the NYT is able to talk about it in the abstract, or from the mouth of another speaker. To my knowledge, the New York Times Style Guide prohibits a reporter from writing a sentence like "Mr. Iqbal was tortured by Egyptian intelligence agents" unless the reporter witnessed it directly. It's possible that the guidelines for the magazine are somewhat looser, and allows imagined narrative. Dan would make to like the point that the newspaper is fecklessly neutral, but I don't think it holds. The newspaper is being fair by not conjuring up facts that it didn't witness. And people take you so literally here. These are the references from the article that Collins points to:

“The maladies, said Mr. Iqbal, 31, a professional reader of the Koran, are the result of a gantlet of torture…”
article: “The Pentagon and C.I.A. deny using torture…”
CIA Spokesman: “…The United States does not conduct or condone torture.”
Iqbal: “Then they make me naked, they torture me.”
article “the Egyptians tortured him with electric shocks, [Iqpal] said.”

In each of these instances, “torture” is attributed to a speaker. I don’t think there was ever a doubt that the NYT is able to talk about it in the abstract, or from the mouth of another speaker.

To my knowledge, the New York Times Style Guide prohibits a reporter from writing a sentence like “Mr. Iqbal was tortured by Egyptian intelligence agents” unless the reporter witnessed it directly. It’s possible that the guidelines for the magazine are somewhat looser, and allows imagined narrative.

Dan would make to like the point that the newspaper is fecklessly neutral, but I don’t think it holds. The newspaper is being fair by not conjuring up facts that it didn’t witness.

]]> By: Bob Collins http://citmedia.org/blog/2009/01/05/bordering-on-accuracy-about-torture/comment-page-1/#comment-2908 Bob Collins Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:16:17 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1632#comment-2908 //One of these days, the newspaper may actually use the correct word without equivocation. Today's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/world/asia/06iqbal.html" rel="nofollow">your lucky day.</a> //One of these days, the newspaper may actually use the correct word without equivocation.

Today’s your lucky day.

]]> By: links for 2009-01-06 – Innovation in College Media http://citmedia.org/blog/2009/01/05/bordering-on-accuracy-about-torture/comment-page-1/#comment-2907 links for 2009-01-06 – Innovation in College Media Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:35:23 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1632#comment-2907 [...] Bordering on Accuracy about Torture Dan Gillmor points out one of the things that will need to change if journalism wants to proceed into the 21st century - calling torture what it is: torture. (tags: newyorktimes torture) [...] [...] Bordering on Accuracy about Torture Dan Gillmor points out one of the things that will need to change if journalism wants to proceed into the 21st century – calling torture what it is: torture. (tags: newyorktimes torture) [...]

]]> By: Jon Garfunkel http://citmedia.org/blog/2009/01/05/bordering-on-accuracy-about-torture/comment-page-1/#comment-2906 Jon Garfunkel Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:39:44 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1632#comment-2906 And let's not forget <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/opinion/14pubed.html" rel="nofollow">all of the gnawing</a> for The Paper of Record to use the word "terrorist" as well. Or maybe, let's. This nitpicking is tiresome. But, as long as we're keeping score, the <i>number-one Google search result</a> for <b><a href="http://www.google.com/search?sa=N&tab=nw&q=torture%20news" rel="nofollow">torture news</a></b> is the Times Topics page on Torture-- featuring articles, op-eds, and editorials on the subject over the years. Yes, I realize that you're after the news articles here. But the problem is more linguistic than journalistic. Let's take this one from November 9, 2005 article by Douglas Jehl: "The report, by John L. Helgerson, the C.I.A.'s inspector general, did not conclude that the torture constituted torture, which is also prohibited under American law, the officials said." Actually, he wrote that the "techniques constitued torture" so the article referred to the "techniques" in question by the report. I realize you're the journalism professor here and I'm not, but it seems like a good reporter can only use the active voice when they've witnessed it directly (contra: "A retired funeral home worker was found stabbed to death in his studio apartment on Staten Island yesterday afternoon, the police said.") Jon And let’s not forget all of the gnawing for The Paper of Record to use the word “terrorist” as well.

Or maybe, let’s. This nitpicking is tiresome.

But, as long as we’re keeping score, the number-one Google search result for torture news is the Times Topics page on Torture– featuring articles, op-eds, and editorials on the subject over the years.

Yes, I realize that you’re after the news articles here. But the problem is more linguistic than journalistic. Let’s take this one from November 9, 2005 article by Douglas Jehl:

“The report, by John L. Helgerson, the C.I.A.’s inspector general, did not conclude that the torture constituted torture, which is also prohibited under American law, the officials said.”

Actually, he wrote that the “techniques constitued torture” so the article referred to the “techniques” in question by the report. I realize you’re the journalism professor here and I’m not, but it seems like a good reporter can only use the active voice when they’ve witnessed it directly (contra: “A retired funeral home worker was found stabbed to death in his studio apartment on Staten Island yesterday afternoon, the police said.”)

Jon

]]>