Reuters Tries To Explain Away Its Refusal To Call Torture 'Torture'

Journalism

from the the-view-from-nowhere dept

We recently pointed out that in a Reuters news report about the pending (and ultimately delayed) release of the declassified executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s $40 million report on the CIA’s torture program, Reuters reporter Patricia Zengerle refused to call the torture program “torture” instead describing it as “physically stressful interrogation techniques” within the following context:

Human rights activists and many politicians have labeled as “torture” some of the physically stressful interrogation techniques, such as water boarding – or simulated drowning – that were authorized under former President George W. Bush.

We then went on to point out how odd it is that Zengerle apparently can’t come to call it torture herself, given that by pretty much every definition out there, including the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture (not to mention President Obama himself) have defined the practices as “torture.”

Journalism professor Jay Rosen read the story and decided to ask Zengerle and Reuters about it. Rosen is the guy who has helped to highlight and call out this weak form of journalism known as “the view from nowhere” in which reporters refuse to actually say what something is, preferring to avoid any such claim. At best, such journalists feel the need to find someone to quote to call something what it is, rather than saying so themselves. Zengerle told Rosen he needed to talk to Reuters PR people, which was reasonably perplexing. Since when do journalists take their orders from PR?

Nonetheless, Rosen did exactly that. At first he was referred to Reuters’ “Handbook of Journalism” which is the organization’s style guide. Except, as Rosen noted, there doesn’t appear to be anything in there concerning whether or not Reuters reporters can call torture “torture.” In response, the PR person told him:

We have no formal policy regarding the designation of certain practices as torture. Our approach, in general, is to factually describe a technique — such as waterboarding — and attribute the characterization of it as torture to credible sources.

That is… an unsatisfactory answer to say the least. The idea, of course, (as one of our commenters on the story noted) is to “stay away from emotionally charged words.” But that’s not reporting. That’s a cop out. Is torture an emotionally charged word? Possibly, but it’s also accurate. It’s not debatable. Under every definition of torture, practices like waterboarding fit. When reporters like Zengerle take the cheap way out, they actually make things even worse. Calling torture like waterboarding “physically stressful interrogation techniques,” it may avoid the “emotionally charged” term of “torture,” but it does a disservice to readers by underplay what is really happening when someone is waterboarded.

A reporter should be accurately reporting the facts. And that means when something is torture, they should call it torture.

When a Reuters PR person tries to brush this aside by arguing that Zengerle “factually described a technique,” she’s not telling the truth. Calling waterboarding and other CIA torture techniques as merely “physically stressful” is an outright misrepresentation of the fact that these techniques — submitting someone to severe mental or physical pain for the purpose of obtaining information — is the very definition of torture. Walking up a big hill may be “physically stressful.” Waterboarding is not merely physically stressful. It’s torture. Reuters does a disservice to truth in pretending otherwise.

Filed Under: jay rosen, journalism, patricia zengerle, style guide, torture, view from nowhere, waterboarding
Companies: reuters