News Outlets Shun Word 'Torture' in Regard to Destroyed CIA Tapes

[babylonsister]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003682997

News Outlets Shun Word 'Torture' in Regard to Destroyed CIA Tapes

By Greg Mitchell

Published: December 08, 2007 11:00 AM ET

NEW YORK As the protests surrounding revelations that the CIA had destroyed tapes that showed brutal interrogations by its agents, most new outlets refused to brand what the tapes likely showed as "torture."

One Associated Press article refers simply to "interrogation" on the tapes, at one point putting "enhanced interrogation" in quotes. Another refers to "harsh interrogation."

Mark Mazzeti in The New York Times uses "severe interrogation methods." Eric Lichtblau in the same paper uses the same phrase. David Johnston, in a Saturday article for paper's Web site, refers to "aggressive interrogations" and "coercive techniques." Reuters, in its lead, relies on "severe interrogation techniques."

Dan Eggen and Joby Warrick in The Washington Post opt for "harsh interrogation tactics." They refer to one detainee having been "identified by intelligence officials as one of three detainees subjected to waterboarding," which they refer to not as torture but as "an aggressive interrogation technique that simulates drowning."

James Oliphant at the Chicago Tribune's popular Washington, D.C. blog The Swamp calls them "extreme methods to interrogate."

James Gordon Meek in New York's Daily New referred to "rough interrogations." McClatchy choose "harsh interrogation tactics" but does get to torture allegations quickly.

Greg Miller in the Los Angeles Times notes the CIA's reference to "harsh interrogation techniques" but at least in his lead he observes that Democrats were indeed calling this "torture."

And a Washington Post editorial bluntly carries as a headline: "The Torture Tapes."
*