A new study by Harvard University:
The New York Times defined waterboarding as torture, or effectively implied that it was, 81.5 percent of the time in articles until 2004, the study found. But during 2002-2008 — when the George W. Bush White House made a concerted effort to normalize harsh interrogation methods for use on terror detainees — the Times “called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles.” That’s 1.4 percent of the time.
I’m sure that now, in the Obama years, the mainstream media has now gone back to describing an action for what it really is… not!
“I’m sure that now, in the Obama years, the mainstream media has now gone back to describing an action for what it really is… not!” /// Well, since Obama called it torture and stopped it, wouldn’t that be appropriate?
But your editorial stylings are torture also. Can’t tell what you mean to say.
Not?
So to be clear: Do you think waterboarding is torture or not?
– or – is your point that the LSM will not correctly call it whatever you think it is????
What does Lara Logan think of it?
Not?
Jack Galt: new editor. Welcome to DU. Had I noticed your first solo flight here I would have waited for Pedro to irrelevantly call you a sheeple before I criticized your ambiguity.
Oh well, maybe on my next first impression?
Again, welcome
Of course, it’s torture. In fact … wait, we are talking about Pedro’s posts, right?
I join Bobbo in welcoming you aboard. I must say, however, your first two entries are not inspired choices.
Who is Jack Galt?
The paper is being used in misleading ways, and it appears even the writers are hiding it a bit in claiming 1%.
The newspaper has gone from saying unilaterally torture to putting a he-said she-said angle on things. These people say it’s torture, they call it enhanced interrogation, etc. The writers of the paper don’t classify these articles in that 1%.
Must be that liberal media at work. NOT
What LIBERAL MEDIA?! If they exist, they must be about 1% of the total deal. Newspapers, Tv and radio. The huge majority of them are owned by large media corporations, whose owners side with Republicans. The extremely tiny percent of the so-called Liberal press, barely has the ready cash to keep going. That’s because most of the businesses that might sponsor them, are also on the Republican side. And yet the keep this “Liberal Media” fiction alive. As if the country will self-destruct if the other 99% of media let slip one percentage point.
I’d actually like to hear some of the Liberal Media’s viewpoint. But they’re not allowed air time or press, in my area. Not a single paper, or broadcast speaks ill of Republicans. No Air America (Radio) here. We’re too close to Washington DC, to allow that. And since January 2010, that liberal venue went bankrupt.
Republicans probably consider The Daily Show, “liberal media”. And of course CNN, because it doesn’t have some idiot like Glenn Beck on it. If you don’t kiss Republican ass, you’re automatically “liberal”. Like they’re no third option.
#7 – Good point of sarcasm. Before GE bought up a bunch of media. Westinghouse (also a defense contractor) use to own a lot of Tv and radio stations. Sometimes it seems like there’s never been a time, in the US, when some defense contractors DIDN’T own and run most of the media. What are they so scared of. Freedom of speech?
Kind of reminds one of Nazi Germany. When their big industrialists owned everything, and backed Hitler. And of course, they blamed those liberal Jews for screwing up everything.
Besides not mentioning waterboarding. Papers like the NY Times also didn’t question the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” report, that got “leaked” to them by Cheney’s office. Only one paper thought to investigate further (Knight Ridder). The rest of the main stream press were all too happy to regurgitate the Bush administration lies.
This is one of many reasons now, news papers or media in general are not respected. They are nothing more then company rags, there to report an agenda, not to invest in searching out the truth.
Now that news has been made-over for its profitability potential, not its journalistic merit; news is not trustworthy
#4, heh, it’s just my pen name.
>What LIBERAL MEDIA?!
Let’s see, Al Gore’s name pops up in a police report, accused of rape. The newspaper sits on the story. Meantime, the networks give wall-to-wall coverage of a 25 year old police report on George W Bush. I’m sure the details of the story made a key distinction, and it had nothing to do with partisan politics or the liberalism of the editors.