NYT Aversion To The "T" Word

[Boom_70]

Interesting story by public editor today on editorial decisions on whether or not to use the word "torture" in it's news stories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/opinion/15pubed.html

Based on this I bet the debate on use of "muslim" was some conversation.

 

[MileHigh]

Um, er, about that fourth word in your post ...

 

[YankeeFan]

Is it common for online headlines to differ from the one in the print edition?

 

[YankeeFan]

Does Reuters still not use the term "terrorists"?

 

[Boom_70]

Um, er, about that fourth word in your post ...

opps - Freudian slip I guess. Thx

 

[MileHigh]

Is it common for online headlines to differ from the one in the print edition?

Absolutely. SEO is the lay of the Internet land.

 

[YankeeFan]

Is it common for online headlines to differ from the one in the print edition?

Absolutely. SEO is the lay of the Internet land.

Right. I remember this being covered in an earlier thread. But, the Times article made it sound unusual -- at least at the times.

 

[franklin lincoln]

Torture has a legal definition. The Times and other right-thinking papers generally try to avoid using legal terms unless there has been a judicial finding. (You won't see a reference to a vehicular homicide as a "murder," or a suspicious fire as an "arson.")

Of course, "torture" has a colloquial meaning as well. The problem with that, though, is torture actually has many colloquial meanings. What is the threshold? Waterboarding? Stress positions? Sleep deprivation?

There is no universally accepted non-legal definition. As a result, any use of the term outside the legal meaning does no service to the reader. When a journalists refers to "torture," it will not be clear what the author is referring to.

 

[The Big Ragu]

What about the time-tested, Supreme Court-approved, legal definition of, "I know it when I see it"?

 

[Boom_70]

Torture has a legal definition. The Times and other right-thinking papers generally try to avoid using legal terms unless there has been a judicial finding. (You won't see a reference to a vehicular homicide as a "murder," or a suspicious fire as an "arson.")

Of course, "torture" has a colloquial meaning as well. The problem with that, though, is torture actually has many colloquial meanings. What is the threshold? Waterboarding? Stress positions? Sleep deprivation?

There is no universally accepted non-legal definition. As a result, any use of the term outside the legal meaning does no service to the reader. When a journalists refers to "torture," it will not be clear what the author is referring to.

Makes sense. Your explanation was clearer than that of The Times Public Editor.

 

[BTExpress]

Absolutely. SEO is the lay of the Internet land.

No matter how many tutorials we have, I don't think I'll ever get it.

Why, for example, when doing a Google search for "Bulls defeat Heat Eastern Conference Finals" . . .

. . . is "www.indycornrows.com" (a Pacers blog) the second link?

And no Chicago or South Florida newspaper on the front page of search?

 

[Big Circus]

What about the time-tested, Supreme Court-approved, legal definition of, "I know it when I see it"?

"For me, it's when the penis goes in."

 

[pressboxer]

Absolutely. SEO is the lay of the Internet land.

No matter how many tutorials we have, I don't think I'll ever get it.

Why, for example, when doing a Google search for "Bulls defeat Heat Eastern Conference Finals" . . .

. . . is "www.indycornrows.com" (a Pacers blog) the second link?

And no Chicago or South Florida newspaper on the front page of search?

One of or staffers had the bright idea to put NUDE TEEN SEX in every web head to generate more hits.