Belle réflexion sous la plume d'ARTHUR S. BRISBANE dans le NY Times.
"In the news columns, an article by Scott Shane and Charlie Savage began with the question: “Did brutal interrogations produce the crucial intelligence that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden?” In print, the story was headlined, “Harsh Methods of Questioning Debated Again.” Online, the headline was quite different and used the “T” word: “Bin Laden Raid Revives Debate on Value of Torture.”
And with that, another — admittedly smaller — controversy was revived as well: this one concerning how The Times refers to the interrogation methods that were adopted by the Bush administration after 9/11.
Readers and bloggers alertly picked up on the nuances of language, and what some called the inconsistencies. The language of the editorial embraced the term “torture” and brooked no euphemisms for it. In the news story, though, the term “torture” came in for carefully considered treatment, and was used plainly in some contexts and avoided in others.
As for the different headlines for the news story, one referring to “torture” and one not, well, that was just confusing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/opinion/15pubed.html?_r=1
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire