You Say Child Abuse. I Say “Enhanced Parenting Techniques.”

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

National Public Radio’s been getting some serious flak for its policy of not using the word “torture” to describe when the United States uses—well, how to be polite about this?—torture. As Kevin Drum noted the other day, the explanations and clarifications coming from NPR’s ombudsman, Alicia C. Shepard, have been pretty weak. The crux of her argument, as detailed here and here, is that the word “torture” is too loaded for a fair-minded news organization to use. Plus, she adds, the word’s very meaning is debatable, so NPR can’t take sides; after all, what if Dick Cheney et al. really are right that the waterboarding they authorized wasn’t torture? It’s kind of like the ongoing debate over those loaded, subjective terms “climate change” and “global warming.” Oh wait—it looks like NPR sided with the crazy enviros on that one.

Now the ombudsman has waded into another thorny semantic debate: What words should responsible journalists use to describe parents beating their kids? Child abuse? Or perhaps the more neutral-sounding “enhanced parenting techniques”? What about “vigorous love taps”? Let the debate begin. (Preemptive parody warning.) 

 

 Love Taps (parody)

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest