torture TV

Via AS, Scott Horton at Harpers notes that when he says "torture" in an interview segment, it doesn't air in the US:

I discovered that when I gave interviews to major media on this subject, any time I used the word “torture” with reference to these techniques, the interview passage would not be used. At one point I was informed by a cable news network that “we put this on international, because we can’t use that word on the domestic feed.” “That word” was torture.

I was coached or told that the words “coercive interrogation technique” were fine, but “torture” was a red light. Why? The Administration objected vehemently to the use of this word. After all, President Bush has gone before the cameras and stated more than three dozen times “We do not torture.” By using the T-word, I was told, I was challenging the honesty of the president. You just couldn’t do that. [...]

He then talks about how Surnow created "24" to enable torture, and how Cheney ruthlessly forced the acceptance of "dark side" techniques on the country:

We should start with a frank question: has “24” been created with an overtly political agenda, namely, to create a more receptive public audience for the Bush Administration’s torture policies? I think the answer to that question is now very clear. The answer is “yes.” In “Whatever It Takes,” Jane Mayer has waded through the sheaf of contacts between the show’s producer, Joel Surnow, and Vice President Cheney and figures right around him. There is little ambiguity about this point, namely, if the torture system introduced after 9/11 can be traced back to a single person, it is Vice President Cheney.

Scary as usual. Even scarier is how few people care.

The Horton story itself is fantastic: a full history of the media's relationship with torture, a graph of depictions of torture on network tv (peaks in 2003), echoes of the Algerian war, etc. Great.