The NYT's Public Editor once again grapples with the paper's slowly collapsing refusal to use English when dealing with claims by the Bush administration:
The Times should use the term “torture” more directly, using it on first reference when the discussion is about — and there’s no other word for it — torture. The debate was never whether Bin Laden was found because of brutal interrogations: it was whether he was found because of torture. More narrowly, the word is appropriate when describing techniques traditionally considered torture, waterboarding being the obvious example. Reasonable fairness can be achieved by adding caveats that acknowledge the Bush camp’s view of its narrow legal definition.
This approach avoids the appearance of mincing words and is well grounded in Americans’ understanding of torture in the historical and moral sense.
But this sentence refutes itself:
Times policy on this appears to be in a state of equipoise — holding steady right in the middle. In fact, it may have migrated some since Mr. Hoyt wrote about it — “harsh” and “brutal” are still in evidence but the use of “torture” is sprinkled throughout, as well.
I suspect the reason the NYT is now returning to using the word "torture" is because they are not sucking up to the Bush administration any more. The entire episode, in historical context, will, I believe, be evidence of the Gray Lady's deep deference to American power.
The Dish 