Thursday, July 9, 2009
NYT Calls It "Torture" When Iran Does It
It's not surprising that Glenn Greenwald busted the NYT on its double-standard regarding the use of the word "torture." (Hint: Americans don't torture.) But if you're interested, click on the link and see just how red-handed the NYT gets caught. Here's Glenn:
Then he got medieval on their hineys by quoting himself from a previous article:
The thing is, I don't think it's actually as devious as GG portrays it to be. In a very real sense, it is much more unbearable to have strange foreigners doing awful things to you, than it would be to have kids who look like you, carrying them out.
In other words, when you read the description of what Iran interrogators would do to people, that really is a lot scarier than listening to descriptions of what the US did to its detainees. So it's easier to automatically call that "torture." Part of the whole nightmare of torture is not understanding and hence not being able to predict what your holders would do next to you. And so obviously NYT writers are going to classify it as "torture" without a moment's thought, when it's Iranians doing it.
It's not particularly unusual for a government to permit itself to do something that it prohibits others from doing. The U.S. is hardly the only country that does that. But when that country's media collectively abets that government effort by molding its language to reflect that exceptionalism, it elevates the propaganda to a much different level.
Then he got medieval on their hineys by quoting himself from a previous article:
Pointing to other governments and highlighting their oppressive behavior can be cathartic, fun and gratifying in a self-justifying sort of way. Ask Fred Hiatt; it's virtually all he ever does. But the first duty of the American media -- like the first duty of American citizens -- is to oppose oppressive behavior by our own government. That's not as fun or as easy, but it is far more important. Moreover, obsessively complaining about the rights-abridging behavior of other countries while ignoring the same behavior from our own government is worse than a mere failure of duty. It is propagandistic and deceitful, as it paints a misleading picture that it is other governments -- but not our own -- which engage in such conduct.
The thing is, I don't think it's actually as devious as GG portrays it to be. In a very real sense, it is much more unbearable to have strange foreigners doing awful things to you, than it would be to have kids who look like you, carrying them out.
In other words, when you read the description of what Iran interrogators would do to people, that really is a lot scarier than listening to descriptions of what the US did to its detainees. So it's easier to automatically call that "torture." Part of the whole nightmare of torture is not understanding and hence not being able to predict what your holders would do next to you. And so obviously NYT writers are going to classify it as "torture" without a moment's thought, when it's Iranians doing it.
Comments:
Honestly I thought it was the other way when you witness grotesque things. When something or someone you think you know well, does something so evil and shocking, it seems worse than when a completely unconnected person, who you don't know does the same thing. At least that is my idea. I would root my idea in the betrayal of trust, and misjudgment of the perpetrator. If your children killed an innocent person, would you honestly feel not as bad if a random person did it.
# posted by 
: July 9, 2009 2:44 AM
: July 9, 2009 2:44 AM
Ucatov, probably agreed. Though I think being waterboarded and otherwise abused is pretty bad no matter who does it.
However, it is more unbearable to imagine strange foreigners doing awful things to others like you, than it would be to have kids who look like you do it.
However, it is more unbearable to imagine strange foreigners doing awful things to others like you, than it would be to have kids who look like you do it.
But Bob, GG isn`t talking about other torturing Americans, but foreigners torturing foreigners vs. Americans torturing foreigners.
I agree stronbgly with Glenn, but journalists are not immune to the hereditary double standard between what "we" do and what "they" double.
In addition, there is a fair amount of denial throughout America (not just journalists, who have surely been preempted as pawns of the power structures), because people prefer not to get alarmed about things they are not personally close to - getting upset would entail a commitment of too much personal energy with too little likelihood of reward.
I agree stronbgly with Glenn, but journalists are not immune to the hereditary double standard between what "we" do and what "they" double.
In addition, there is a fair amount of denial throughout America (not just journalists, who have surely been preempted as pawns of the power structures), because people prefer not to get alarmed about things they are not personally close to - getting upset would entail a commitment of too much personal energy with too little likelihood of reward.
Ucatov, I agree with what you're saying, but still it seems scarier to me to imagine having Iranian guards beat me etc. rather than American boys.
Tom, see above. I know it was Iranians torturing Iranians, but I'm saying that when I read descriptions of an Iranian guard doing something, that strikes me as creepier.
Tom, see above. I know it was Iranians torturing Iranians, but I'm saying that when I read descriptions of an Iranian guard doing something, that strikes me as creepier.
Bob, your point that you find what others do creepier is consistent with my point, which is that our tribal identities lead us naturally to double standards.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]