About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

WaPo's Kane explains why his paper avoids the term "torture"

April 23, 2009 12:39 pm ET by Jamison Foser

Washington Post reporter Paul Kane explains the reluctance to use the word "torture" to describe torture:

New York, N.Y.: What's the difference betwee the "harsh interrogations" I keep reading about in The Post and actual "torture"? If it's the same thing, then why not just call it "torture"? I don't get it. Aren't you guys continuing to catapult Bush-era propaganda when you use such NewSpeak euphemisms for what we all (finally) know was clearly torture, based on U.S. and International law?

Paul Kane: You can't call someone a convicted murderer until he/she has actually been convicted.

Understand? Get it?

The reason we say "alleged" murder and things like that is for our own legal protection. So we can't be sued for libel. Take a look at financial reports on the newspaper business. We're not going to do anything that leads to us losing any more money these days.

So who does the Post think is going to sue them for libel if they refer to torture as "torture"?  It doesn't seem like there is a long line of people who participated in harsh interrogations torture who are eager to litigate their conduct, but maybe I'm wrong.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by msshiffman746636 (April 23, 2009 12:57 pm ET)
         
      The continued use of the term "enhanced interrogation" for torture only shows that there are a lot of people out there who have very high levels of excrement!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (April 23, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
         
      You can't call someone a murderer until they're convicted but you can call the crime murder. 
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Eric Jaffa (April 23, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
         
      Atrios writes, "How About 'Alleged Torture'"
      Report Abuse
    • Author by littlethomsongs909 (April 23, 2009 1:37 pm ET)
         
      My god, that's dumb. When someone is killed by several gunshots you don't have to call it "alleged murder." It's murder. There's not risk of libel for that. Sheesh.

      Torture was committed as defined by U.S. law. There is no risk in calling it torture.

      Paul Kane is just not that bright.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Peter Principle (April 23, 2009 1:46 pm ET)
         

      This is wrong on so many levels. First, it appears Mr. Kane, professional journalist, is unfamiliar with the Times v. Sullivan case and the exemption it carved out for public figures. Second, does he seriously expect us to believe the Washington Post makes decisions on how it covers vital national security issues based on the paper's potential legal exposure to libel actions, or the newspaper industry's economic misfortunes? Third, does he have any idea what a supercilious ass he sounds like here?

      Only the third question has an obvious answer, which is: not a freaking clue.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by MickD (April 23, 2009 1:49 pm ET)
         
      He comes off also as very prickly. I doubt he believes in what he is forced to defend.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Whispers (April 23, 2009 11:07 pm ET)
           
        You doubt he believes in what he is saying?  I think it's quite the opposite.  
        Report Abuse
    • Author by flounder (April 23, 2009 2:07 pm ET)
         
      Take a look at financial reports on the newspaper business. We're not going to do anything that leads to us losing any more money these days.
      I got a kick out of this. I wrote in during the chat to point out that the fact that disgraced former Senator  Rick Santorum is getting paid $1750 per column by a bankrupt paper (and the WaPo is paying George Will to misrepresent science and complain about denim) shows that, in fact, papers are still doing plenty of things to lose more money.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by seeryer (April 23, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
         
      Maybe you are in the financial shiite storm you are in is because you refuse to call a crime that the US has prosecuted with the death penalty in the past "a crime".  At least admit theses techniques were used by people who were later executed for performing them?  Just admit you are scared of the right wing noise machine.  Just F-ing say it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mediamatters3740 (April 23, 2009 2:57 pm ET)
         
      Hmm ... so until there's a conviction, "murder" should be called something like "enhanced interference with life function."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by randy99 (April 23, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
         

      When something is a fact, we don't call it a fact. until Karl Rove says it is.

      Understand? Get it?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by VictorLaszlo (April 23, 2009 3:05 pm ET)
         

      No, this is entirely consistent. The Post routinely refers to murder as 'potential life-denying activities' until a conviction comes down.

      Seriously. Look it up. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Whispers (April 23, 2009 11:05 pm ET)
         

      I like the "Understand?  Get it?"

       Nothing quite like the arrogance of establishment media when they are babbling nonsense.

      Report Abuse