Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

I'm already mad at the news media because of the way the swine flu is being reported, so it should be easy for me to get mad about the use of euphemisms for torture. But I can't seem to get as rankled as Mr. Peters. Unlike Mr. Peters, I appreciate congressional reporter Paul Kane's cautious response to the question. We're going through a tortuous legal process over torture. Until these issues are settled, I can't fault news media if they choose to use cautious language. And even if I could fault them, it doesn't really bother me so much because I already know what they are talking about. In other words, just because they use a euphemism for torture, such as “harsh” or “brutal,” it doesn't distort what was actually done and it certainly doesn't change my opinion that these techniques are in fact torture.

And besides, most of the media is challenging government officials on the use of the word "torture." It's almost comical to watch people squirm when they are asked repeatedly whether they consider specific interrogation techniques torture. In the end most of them say they "don't know." Interesting that they knew enough to approve of it and authorize it, but they don't know enough now to say whether it is torture. One assumes that at the time it was being done they didn't think of it as torture. But now they're not sure?

I believe the confusion over the use of the word stems from the understanding of what torture is. For example, the common definition of torture is: the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. There are those who would argue that the only aim of the government was to get information critical for national defense and that none of the techniques used caused “excruciating pain.” I imagine there are many times more who would argue against those arguments. But, the point is, there is an argument.

If the news media reports as a given fact that what we did is torture, and not only that states as a given fact that it is illegal torture, then it can be accused of having a bias, or a foregone conclusion, before the issues are settled in the Justice Department. So, even though I have already prejudged the issue, and even though I'm already willing to consider it illegal torture, I just can't fault the news media if they want to hold back a bit on the language for now. And unlike Mr. Peters, I don't care if one newspaper fusses over whether to use “harsh” or “brutal.”