A column by NPR’s ombudsman defending the network’s refusal to use the word “torture” to describe U.S. interrogation techniques sparked an uproar that shows no sign of ending soon.
NPR currently uses phrases like “enhanced interrogation,” “harsh interrogation” and “techniques that some critics call torture.”
The ombudsman, Alicia Shepard, presents this as a debate between some who want journalists to “take sides” and other, more rational people who believe journalists must be neutral and objective, noting differences and presenting them to the public so that people can make decisions for themselves. Shepard writes:
[T]he role of a news organization is not to choose sides in this or any debate. People have different definitions of torture and different feelings about what constitutes torture. NPR’s job is to give listeners all perspectives, and present the news as detailed as possible and put it in context.
So, to take sides or not to take sides? The problem is that this is a false choice. No journalist behaves as a neutral observer, though a tremendous number see themselves that way. Journalists constantly make subjective decisions — when they decide what to cover, how to cover it, which sources to contact and how much weight to give them in a story, and so much more.
If an NPR reporter were covering the health effects of cigarette smoking, for instance, I doubt he or she would present a story that gave equal time to contradictory arguments from the FDA and from a cigarette manufacturer, then end the story. The same could be said about climate change coverage.
Shepard’s argument is hypocritical in other ways. Glenn Greenwald has noted that mainstream media outlets refusing to call U.S. tactics torture have no compunctions about labeling other governments’ actions as such (or of describing foreigners as “terrorists” or “militants” based on our government’s word alone). Yet these journalists never bother to present the opposing point of view — and in most cases, the torture techniques strikingly resemble ones the United States employs.
In attempting to defend the mainstream media/journalism school conception of the objective reporter, Shepard ties herself in a Guordian knot and presents an argument through which a middle schooler could poke holes. In an interview on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation,” she essentially argues that there is no such thing as objective truth — or if there is, it isn’t her responsibility to do anything about it. By her standard, if a politician says the sky is green, she would no longer be able to report that the sky is blue without presenting it as a debate between two sides, even if one side might be lying:
I think that as a journalist at a reputable, credible news organization, you have to include all sides in the debate. … When there are two sides, or three sides, it becomes a debate. … Whether [a point of view] is intended to dupe people or not, the role of the journalist is to put that information out there.
Later in the show, a caller notes that there’s no nuance as to whether certain acts constitute child abuse or domestic violence, so why is there nuance when describing torture? Here, Shepard is assisted by host Neal Conan, a fellow believer in objective journalism, who says, “There’s no really [sic] other side for child abuse or domestic violence.” So it sounds like child abusers just have to manufacture an “other side” and journalists will cut them some slack and portray it as a debate.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Depending on the type of child abuse, for instance, there often is another side – NAMBLA comes to mind – but something tells me NPR isn’t going to call them for a quote. NPR reporters, like most other journalists, make a reasonable but subjective decision that it would be unnecessary, offensive, ridiculous, etc. to portray this as a debate between two sides.
Still, the institution of mainstream media is insular and irrational enough that a significant portion of its members somehow think they must — and can — check every preconception and opinion at the door when they report a story.
What’s really going on here is a combination of two factors: (1) strong support among much of mainstream journalism for the false tenet of “objectivity,” and (2) an extremely effective campaign by the right against the “liberal media” that has made journalists, who overwhelmingly are personally liberal, feel a deep sense of guilt about their ideology, in turn making them hesitant and terrified to offend conservatives.
As we’re seeing from the despair, regressive thinking and heel-clicking that’s come along with the collapse of newspapers, significant portions of the journalism industry aren’t particularly big on thinking outside the box. The notion of journalistic objectivity set in decades ago and, without much critical thinking about its sensibility, it hasn’t received a strong enough challenge. Nor has the myth that mainstream media is a liberal institution.
The best way to return journalism to reality is to support forward-thinking, innovative journalists and organizations that believe in fairness, not neutrality, and to avoid supporting regressive institutions and organizations that legitimize behavior like torture by using Orwellian phrases like “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
Here’s how I intend to begin: The next time NPR hosts a pledge drive, I’m calling in to make my views known about their refusal to call torture what it is. I hope you’ll consider joining me.
Recommended reading: In April, Jay Rosen convincingly argued that there isn’t much of a place for he said/she said reporting in an era of new media.
Missing from 