Torture at Times Hks Students[1]

8/9/2019 Torture at Times Hks Students[1]

1/22

JoanShorensteinCenteronthePress,PoliticsandPublicPolicy

HarvardStudentPaperApril2010

TortureatTimes:Waterboarding

in

the

Media

ByHarvardStudents:

NealDesai,HarvardLawSchoolAndrePineda,MajkenRunquist,MarkFusunyan,HarvardCollege

ResearchTeam:KatyGlenn,GabrielleGould,MichelleKatz,HenryLichtblau,MaggieMorgan,SophiaWen,SandyWong

Advisor:ThomasE.Patterson,HarvardKennedySchool

2010PresidentandFellowsofHarvardCollege.Allrightsreserved.


2/22

Abstract

Thecurrentdebateoverwaterboardinghasspawnedhundredsof

newspaperarticlesinthelasttwoyearsalone.However,waterboardinghasbeen

thesubjectofpressattentionforoveracentury.Examiningthefournewspapers

withthehighestdailycirculationinthecountry,wefoundasignificantand

suddenshiftinhownewspaperscharacterizedwaterboarding.Fromtheearly

1930suntilthemodernstorybrokein2004,thenewspapersthatcovered

waterboardingalmostuniformlycalledthepracticetortureorimplieditwas

torture:TheNewYorkTimescharacterizeditthusin81.5%(44of54)ofarticleson

thesubjectandTheLosAngelesTimesdidsoin96.3%ofarticles(26of27).By

contrast,from20022008,thestudiednewspapersalmostneverreferredto

waterboardingastorture.TheNewYorkTimescalledwaterboardingtortureor

implieditwastortureinjust2of143articles(1.4%).TheLosAngelesTimesdidso

in4.8%ofarticles(3of63).TheWallStreetJournalcharacterizedthepracticeas

torturein

just

1of

63

articles

(1.6%).

USAToday

never

called

waterboarding

tortureorimplieditwastorture.Inaddition,thenewspapersaremuchmore

likelytocallwaterboardingtortureifacountryotherthantheUnitedStatesis

theperpetrator.InTheNewYorkTimes,85.8%ofarticles(28of33)thatdealtwith

acountryotherthantheUnitedStatesusingwaterboardingcalledittortureor

implieditwastorturewhileonly7.69%(16of208)didsowhentheUnitedStates

wasresponsible.TheLosAngelesTimescharacterizedthepracticeastorturein

91.3%ofarticles(21of23)whenanothercountrywastheviolator,butinonly

11.4%ofarticles(9of79)whentheUnitedStateswastheperpetrator.

2


3/22

INTRODUCTION

Thousandsofnewsarticleshavebeenwrittenoverthepastseveralyears

aboutthepracticethathascometobeknownaswaterboarding.1TheNewYork

Times,forexample,mentionswaterboardinginover150articlesin2007and2008

alone.Evenbeforethecurrentdebate,however,waterboardingappearedwith

someregularityinthenewsthroughoutthe20thcentury,fromthePhilippine

insurgencytoWorldWarIItotheVietnamWar.Inaddressingwaterboarding,

formorethan70yearspriorto9/11,Americanlaw2andmajornewspapers

consistentlyclassifiedwaterboardingastorture.However,sincethestorybegan

receivingsignificantmediaattentionin2004,followingtheAbuGhraibprisoner

abusescandalandrevelationsofwaterboardingbytheUnitedStates,media

sourcesappeartohavechangedtheircharacterizationofthepractice.

Documentingtheextentofthediscrepancybetweenthepre9/11consensusthat

waterboardingwastortureandthepost9/11mediatreatmentofthepracticeis

animportant

first

step

to

explaining

how

and

why

this

occurred.

Thisstudyseekstoquantifythetreatmentprovidedtowaterboarding

beforeandafter9/11byreviewingcoverageofthepracticeinthenationsfour

widestcirculatingnewspapers.Basedonourinitialreviewofmediareporting

andsomesecondaryliterature,wehypothesizedthatthetonetakentoward

waterboardingbymajornewspapersmightbesomewhatmorelenientinthe

post9/11era,particularlyaftertheBushadministrationauthorizedthepractice

andfearofterrorismwaswidespreadamongthepublic.Whatwefound,

however,throughourreviewofthousandsofarticlesinmajornewspapers,was

a

dramatic

shift

in

coverage

away

from

nearly

a

century

of

practice

recognizing

waterboardingastorture.Thisstudyprovidesdetailsonthenatureofthis

transformationthroughanexhaustiveexaminationofoveracenturyofreporting

bythenationsleadingnewspapers.

1Before2004,waterboardinghadbeenreferredtovariouslyaswatertorture,thewater

cure,thewatertreatment,elsubmarino(orthewetsubmarine),dunking,andforcedingestion,

among

other

terms.

2Forexample,CourtMartialofMajorEdwinF.Glenn,Samar,P.I.,April1902(reprintedinLeon

Friedman,THELAWOFWAR:ADOCUMENTARYHISTORY,814(1972));CaseagainstMasatoshi

Sawamura(U.S.MilitaryCommission,Yokohama,1429April,1947)(Sawamurawasconvicted

ofviolationsofthelawsandcustomsofwarfor,interalia,watertortureofAmericanprisonersof

war,andwassentencedto30yearshardlabor);UnitedStatesofAmericav.HidejiNakamura,

YukioAsano,SeitaraHata,andTakeoKita(U.S.MilitaryCommission,Yokohama,128May,

1947.NARARecords,NND735027RG153,Entry143Box1025);EvanWallach,DropbyDrop:

ForgettingtheHistoryofWaterTortureinU.S.Courts,45COLUM.J.TRANSNATLL.468(2007).

3


4/22

METHODOLOGY

Thisstudyexaminesthenarrativevoiceofthenationsleading

newspapersconcerningthepracticeofwaterboarding.Usingelectronic

databases,ourresearchteamwordsearchedforthetermwaterboardingand

itshistoricalsynonyms,thenreadtheretrievedarticlesandclassifiedtheir

reportingofthepracticeintoseveralcategories.Theseincludedclassifyingthe

practiceastorture,givingitsomelesser,negativeclassification(suchascalling

waterboardinginhuman),givingitasofter,lessnegativeclassification(suchas

callingwaterboardingobjectionable),ornotcharacterizingthepracticeatall.

Wedefinewaterboardingtobethepracticeofintentionallyinducingthe

sensationofdrowninginthevictim.Thissensationhasbeenachievedina

numberofways,includingbutnotlimitedto:(1)placingaclothorplasticwrap

overthefaceofthevictimandpouringwaterovertheclothorplasticwrap,(2)

pouringwaterdirectlyintothemouthandnoseofthevictim,(3)placingastick

betweenthe

victims

teeth

and

pouring

water

into

his

or

her

mouth,

often

until

thevictimsstomachbecomesdistended,thenforcingthewaterbackoutofthe

victimsmouth,and(4)dunkingandholdingthevictimsheadunderwater.

WeexaminedcoverageofwaterboardinginthefourU.S.newspapers

withthehighestdailycirculation:USAToday,TheWallStreetJournal(WSJ),The

NewYorkTimes(NYTimes),andTheLosAngelesTimes(LATimes).3Usingthe

onlinedatabasesProquest,LexisNexis,andtheNYTimeswebsitearchives,we

searchedthepapersforspecifictermsreferringtothepractice.4Thecoders

continuouslyaddedtoourlistofsearchtermsasnewsynonymsof

waterboarding

were

discovered.

As

search

terms

were

added,

they

were

applied

totheyearsthathadalreadybeensearched.Allarticlesdiscoveredusingthenew

searchtermswerecodedandaddedtothedataset.

FortheNYTimes,weusedProquestHistoricalNewspapersDatabasefor

theyears18511986.Weusedthearchivesathttp://www.nytimes.comtosearch

theyears19872008.FortheLATimes,weusedProquestfrom18811985and

3NumbersasreportedbytheAuditBureauofCirculationasofMarch31,2007.Availableat

http://www.burrellesluce.com/top100/2008_Top_100List.pdf

4Thesetermswere:waterboarding,waterboarding,waterboard,waterboard,water

board,waterboarding,watertorture,submarino,simulateddrowning,mockdrowning,

neardrowning,feigneddrowning,submersionheadwater,submersionwatertorture,

watercure,watertreatment,parrotsperch,torturelite,torturadelagua,tormento

detoca,punishmentofthepump,waterdetail,formofmockexecution,Asiantorture,

Swedishdrink,coldwaterdash,coldwaterprocess.Parrotsperchdoesnotreferto

waterboarding,buttheauthorsfoundothermentionsofwaterboardingneartheterm,so

searchedforittoidentifyotherreferencestowaterboarding.

4


5/22

LexisNexisfrom19862008.FortheWSJ,weusedProquestfrom18811991and

LexisNexisfrom19922008.ForUSAToday,weusedLexisNexisfrom19892008.

Usingoursearchterms,wereturnedatotalof14,589results.5Articles

containingtermsassociatedwithwaterboardingbutnotaddressingtheactual

interrogationpractice(e.g.theactionsofmunicipalWaterBoards)were

eliminated.Inaddition,articlesthatmentionthepracticeonlytangentiallyor

metaphorically(e.g.,quotingastockbrokersayingthattheeconomywaslike

Chinesewatertorture6)werenotincludedinthedataset.Finally,toisolatethe

narrativevoiceofthepaperitself,bookreviews,theaterreviews,filmreviews,

andletterstotheeditorwereexcluded.

Ofthe14,589totalreturns,668articlesmetourspecificationsandwere

coded.Thisincludes175codedfromtheLATimes,354fromtheNYTimes,36

fromUSAToday,and103fromtheWSJ.

Articleswerecodedalongsevenpossiblecategories:torture,implying

itstorture,

others

calling

it

torture,

negative

treatment,

softer

treatment,

notreatment,andmiscellaneous.Thecategoriesweredefinedasfollows:7

torturethenarrativevoiceofthearticleitselfexplicitlyanddirectlyequateswaterboardingwithtorture.Forexample,sixformerinmates

testifiedthattheyweretorturedintheruralEastTexasjailfrom1976

to1980byhavingtowelsdrapedovertheirfacesandwaterpoured

overthem.8

implyingitstorturethearticledoesnotexplicitlycallthepracticetorture

but

strongly

and

directly

implies

that

it

is.

This

category

appliedtosituationsinwhichthepracticeisgroupedwithother

practicesthatarecalledtorture,butwaterboardingitselfisnot

explicitlycalledtorture.Forexample,Theinterrogationtechniques

themselveshavebeenrepeatedlydiscussed,andadministration

officialshavebeenforcedtoexplainwhywaterboarding,asimulated

drowningtechniqueoftorturersdatingbacktotheSpanish

Inquisition,wasnottorturewhenusedbytheC.I.A.9

otherscallingittorturethearticlereferstoorquotessomeoneelsecallingthepracticetorture.Forexample,criticssuspectthetapes

5Theexactbreakdownofsearchtermresultsisbrokendownbypaperandsearchterminthe

AppendixB.6VartanigVartan,DowDropsby2.86;Offby21.12forWeek;CitiesServiceStockSoars,N.Y.TIMES,

June19,1982,atsection2,page357ThefullcodinginstructionsarelistedinAppendixA.

8ExSheriff sDeputyDeniesInmateTortures,N.Y.TIMES,Sept.8,1983.

9ScottShane,AnElusiveStartingPointonHarshInterrogation,N.Y.TIMES,June11,2008

5


6/22

containedevidenceofwaterboarding,whichinternationalhuman

rightsgroupsandothershavedenouncedastorture.10

negativetreatmentthetechniqueisdescribedbywordswithanecessarilynegativemoralorvaluejudgmentattached,suchas,

inhumanorabusive.Forexample,highvaluedetaineeswere

subjectedtoevermorebarbaricacts,includingsimulateddrowning.11

softertreatmentthetechniqueisdescribedusingwordswithoutanynecessarilynegativemoralorvaluejudgmentattachedsuchas

descriptionslikeharshorcontroversial.Forexample,opinions

thatallowedtheCIAtouseaggressiveinterrogationmethods,which

includedwaterboarding.12

Notreatmenteithertheprocedureissimplydrylyexplainedorthereisnoelaborationatall.Thiscolumnwasnotusedifanyofthe

abovecategorieswereused.Forexample,someofwhomwere

subjectedto

waterboarding,

an

interrogation

technique

that

simulates

drowning.13

Misc.acatchallcategoryforeveryothersituation.Forexample,positivecoveragesuchasCapt.LeeHallThewatercure,he

thought,wasnoworseinitseffectthanthenativevino.14

Ifanarticlefitmorethanonecategorywecodedboth.Theexceptiontothisrule

wasforoverlapbetweenthecategoriestorture,implyingitstorture,

negativetreatment,andsoftertreatment;insuchcases,onlythemostsevere

treatment

was

coded

(torture

>

implying

its

torture

>

negative

treatment

>

softertreatment). 15However,inunusualcaseswherethishierarchymight

excludevaluableinformation,thiswasnotedinthemisc.column.

Notably,thecategoryotherscallingittortureisnotincludedinthis

exception.Thus,overlapwithothercategoriesispossibleandsomearticlesarein

morethanonecategory.Otherscallingittorturewasleftoutbecausewhile

quotingothersisaneditorialchoiceofthepaper,itisnotdirectlythenarrative

voice.Wethereforeallowedoverlaptocaptureboththeeditorialchoicesandthe

narrativevoiceofthenewspaper.Moreover,preliminaryexaminations

10JoshMeyer,JudgereluctanttoprobeCIAsdestructionoftapes,L.A.TIMES,Dec.22,2007.

11Editorial,LookingatAmerica,N.Y.TIMES,Dec.31,2007.

12EvanPerez,GonzalezDefendsRoleInAntiterrorPolicies,WALLST.J.,Dec.31,2008.

13KevinJohnson,FBIagentsobjectedtointerrogationtactics,U.S.A.TODAY,May5,2008.

14WaterCureandWine,N.Y.TIMES,May16,1902.

15Forexample,ScottShane,AnElusiveStartingPointonHarshInterrogation,N.Y.TIMES,June11,

2008.

6


7/22

suggestedthatquotingotherswasoftenpairedwithsoftertreatmentinarticles;

codingbothallowedexplorationofthispotentialoverlap.

Theconsistencyofcodingacrossresearcherswascheckedbyindependent

verificationattwopoints.Thefirstverificationwasdonebyanindependent

researcherreviewingarandomsampleof30articles,10fromeachofthethree

coders,andworkingfromthecontemporarywrittencodinginstructions.For

eachpossiblecategoryoftreatment,theverifiermatchedtheoriginalcoder,at

worst,80%ofthetime,andgenerallywithaccuraciesofcloseto90%.

Furthermore,thecodingwasmostinaccurateindeterminingwhetherthearticle

wasquotingcriticscallingthepracticetortureorotherswhowerenotcritics

callingittorture.Subsequently,andbecauseoftheevidentdifficultyofmaking

suchadistinction,thesetwocategorieswerecollapsedintoasinglecategory,

otherscallingittorture.Oncethiserrorwaseliminatedbymergingthe

terms,therateofcoderreliabilityincreasedto,atworst,90%.

Thesecond

verification

occurred

after

the

coding

of

all

four

papers

had

beencompleted.Again,anindependentresearcherwhohadnotcodedbefore,

workingonlyfromthecodinginstructions,wasaskedtocode35articlesfive

randomlyselectedarticlesfromeachcoder.Again,fromeachpossiblecategory

oftreatment,theverifiercodedthearticlesthesameastheoriginalcoder,at

worst,83%ofthetime.Indeed,theconsistencyofcodingwasusuallygreater

than90%.

RESULTS

Treatment

over

Time

NYTimesNews

Fromitsfirstmentionofwaterboardingin1901until1925,theNYTimes

rarelydescribedwaterboardingastorture,callingittortureorimplyingthe

practicewastortureinonly11.9%ofarticles(10of84).Mostoften,

waterboardingwasnotgivenanytreatment(61.9%ofarticleshadnotreatment,

or52of84).

FIGURE 1: NY Times, Calling/Implying Torturein '31-'99 and in '02-'08

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0%

1931-1999 2002-2008

Torture/Implied

Torture

Thispatternoftreatmentchangedwiththenextmentionof

waterboarding,in1931,andremainedgenerallyconsistentuntilanother

dramaticshift,in2004.

Figure3,

below,

illustratesthistrendover

time.From1931to1999,

NYTimesjournalists

calledwaterboarding

tortureorimpliedthatit

wastorturein81.5%(44

7


8/22

of54)ofthearticles.Bycontrast,from20022008,waterboardingwascalled

tortureorimpliedtobetortureinjust2of143articles(1.4%).Notably,ofthese

twoarticles,onewasaboutwaterboardinginChileandmadenomentionofthe

U.S.

FIGURE 2: NY Times, '31-'99 treatment

contrasted with '02-'08

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1931-1999 2002-2008

Torture/Implied

Torture

Softer

Treatment

No Treatment

Thedecreaseintheuseofthewordtorturecorrespondstoanincreasein

theuseofnotreatment

andsoftertreatment.

Theuseofsofter

treatmentincreased

from0%(0of54)

between1931and2002

to45.5%(65of143)

between2002and2008.

Notreatmentuse

increasedfrom

9.3%

of

articles(5of54)from

1931to1999to28.7%

(41of143)in20022008.

Figure 3: NY Times, News Treatment by Decade 1931-2008

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1931-1940 1941-1950 1951-1960 1961-1970 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2008

Torture/Implied

Torture

Softer

Treatment

No Treatment

Withintheperiodfrom2002to2008,thepaperstreatmentwasgenerally

consistent,withoutsignificanttrends.

NYTimesOpinion

Opinionpiecesweremorelikelythannewspiecestocallwaterboarding

tortureduring

all

time

periods.

Though

there

were

few

opinion

pieces

before

2002,50%ofthesearticles(7of14)saidorimpliedthatwaterboardingwas

torture.After2002,thispercentdecreasedslightlyto49.2%(29of59),with27.1%

(16of59)ofarticlesgivingnotreatmentand10.2%(6of59)givingnegative

treatment.Thusasthenonopinionpiecesincreasinglyusedsoftertreatment,the

opinionpiecescontinuedtheiruseofthewordtorture.

8


9/22

LATimesNews

TheLATimesbeganreportingthewatercure,asitwasknownduring

thePhilippineInsurgency,astorture.From1901toearlyMay1902,itwascalled

tortureorimpliedtobetorturein63.6%ofarticles(7of11).However,fromthe

endofMay1902through1917,thepapercalledthepracticetortureorimpliedit

wastortureinonly1of32articles(3.1%).Instead,thepapergenerallygavethe

practicenotreatment(in25of32articles,or78.1%ofarticles).After1917,the

paperdidnotmentionthepracticeagainuntil1935.

Figure4demonstratesthepatternoftreatmentafter1935.From19352001,

theLATimescalledwaterboardingtortureorimplieditwastorturein96.3%of

articles(26of27).Thepaperthendidnotmentionwaterboardingagainuntil

2006.From20062008,thenewspapercalledwaterboardingtortureorimpliedit

wastortureinonly4.8%ofarticles(3of63),insteadusingsoftertreatmentin

58.7%ofarticles(27of63)andgivingnotreatmentinafurther23.8%(15of63).

Figure 4: LA Times, News Treatment Over Time

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1935-1950 1951-1965 1966-1980 1981-1995 1996-2002 2004-2008

Torture/Im

plying

TortureSofter

Treatment

No

Treatment

Intheperiodfrom2006to2008thepaperstreatmentwasgenerally

consistent,withoutsignificanttrends.

LATimesOpinion

OnlyoneopinionpieceintheLATimesaddressedwaterboardingbefore

2003,soitisimpossibletoestablishiftherewasachangeintreatmentovertime.

However,post2003opinionarticlesweremorelikelythannewsarticlestocall

thepracticetortureand,ingeneral,reflectthesamepatternfoundintheNY

Timesopinionpages.Between2003and2008,thepapersopinionpiecescalled

waterboardingtorture

or

implied

it

was

torture

in

46.3%

of

pieces

(19

of

41).

The

remainingopinionpiecesappliedothercategoriesoftreatment:19.5%ofpieces

(8of41)gavethepracticenotreatment,14.6%(6of41)gavewaterboardingsofter

treatment,and7.3%(3of41)gavethepracticenegativetreatment.

Themajorityofopinionarticlesoccurredafter2006(31of41)andthere

wasanoticeableshiftintreatmentbetween2007and2008.In2007,only4of15

9


10/22

opinionpieces(26.7%)calledwaterboardingtortureorimpliedthepracticewas

torture.Bycontrast,in2008,10of16(62.5%)opinionpiecesdidso.

WSJandUSAToday

TheWSJandUSATodaydonothaveaslongahistoryofreportingon

waterboardingaseithertheLATimesortheNYTimes,makingitimpossibleto

comparetheircoverageofthecurrentdebateagainstpastpractice.

USATodayfirstmentions

waterboardingin2004.Outof18

totalnewspiecesaddressing

waterboardingafter2004,none

calledwaterboardingtortureor

implieditwastorture.Twelveof

the18articles(66.7%)gavethe

practicesofter

treatment

and

a

further3(16.7%)gave

waterboardingnotreatment.

FIGURE 5: USA Today, News

Treatment, 2006-2008

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Tor ture Sof ter

Treatment

No Treatment

2006-

2008

Aswiththeotherpapers,theUSATodayopinionpagesaremuchmore

likelytocallthepracticetorture.Fromthefirstopinionpieceonwaterboarding

in2006through2008,55.6%ofopinionarticles(10of18)saidorimpliedthe

practicewastorture.Mostoftherestoftheopinionpiecesgavethepracticeno

treatment(27.8%or5of18pieces).

FIGURE 6: WSJ, News Treatment, 2006-2008

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

Torture Sof ter

Treatment

No Treatment

2006-

2008

TheWSJpublishedonlytwonewsarticlesthatconsideredwaterboarding

before

2005:

one

called

waterboardingtortureandone

gaveitnegativetreatment.

From2005to2008,only1of63

articles(1.6%)called

waterboardingtorture.Notably,

thisonearticleaddressed

waterboardinginEastGermany

undertheCommunistregime

anddidnotmentiontheU.S.Incontrast,55.6%ofnewsarticles(35of63)gave

waterboardingno

treatment

and

12.7%

(8

of

63)

gave

softer

treatment.

Withinthistimeperiod,reportingbytheWSJshifted.In2007,85%of

articles(17of20)gavethepracticenotreatment.Bycontrast,in2008,only40%of

articles(16of40)gavenotreatment.Instead,thepaperquotedotherscallingthe

practicetorturewithincreasedfrequency(18of40articles,or45%).

Incontrasttotheotherpapers,theWSJopinionpieceswereasunlikelyas

theirnewsarticlestocallwaterboardingtorture.Between2005and2008,only1

10


11/22

of38opinionarticles(2.6%)calledthepracticetortureorimplieditwastorture.

Bycontrast,52.6%ofpieces(20of38)gavenotreatmentand28.9%(11of38)

gavethepracticesoftertreatment.

CountryResponsibleforWaterboarding

Newsarticlesthatconsideredothercountriesorindividualscommitting

waterboardingwerefarmorelikelytoclassifywaterboardingastorturethan

articlesthatdealtwiththeU.S.usingwaterboarding.

FIGURE 7: NY Times News, Who Was

Waterboarding

0%20%

40%

60%

80%

US Non-US

Torture/

Implying

Torture

IntheNYTimes,85.8%ofarticles(28of33)thatdealtwithacountryother

thantheU.S.using

waterboardingagainstan

individualcalledwaterboarding

tortureorimplieditwastorture.

YetwhentheU.S.wasthe

perpetrator,only

7.69%

(16

of

208)articlessaidorimpliedthat

waterboardingwastorture.Just

0.8%ofthearticles(1of133)dealingwiththeWaronTerrorwheretheU.S.was

theperpetratorsaidorimpliedthatwaterboardingwastorture.

FIGURE 8: LA Times News, Who Was

Waterboarding

0%

20%

40%60%

80%

100%

US Non-US

Torture/

ImplyingTorture

TheLATimesfollowsasimilarpatternofavoidingthelabeloftorture

whentheU.S.isresponsiblefor

usingwaterboarding.Inarticles

thatconsideredothercountries

using

waterboarding,

91.3%

of

articles(21of23)called

waterboardingtortureor

impliedthepracticewas

torture.WhentheU.S.wasthe

violator,only11.4%ofarticles(9of79)usedthisclassification.

TheWSJprintedjustfourarticlesthatclassifiedwaterboardingastorture;

however,threeofthesearticlesaddressedcountriesotherthantheU.S.using

waterboarding.Thefourtharticlediscussedwaterboardingingeneral,without

referencetoaspecificincidenceorspecificpartiesinvolved.

Theanalysis

does

not

apply

in

the

case

of

USA

Today

because

all

of

its

articlesreferredtoinstanceswheretheU.S.wastheperpetrator.Noneofthese

articlessaidorimpliedthatwaterboardingwastorture.

11


12/22

OthersCallingItTorture

BalancewithSofterTreatment

Allfourpapersfrequentlybalancedtheiruseofsoftertreatmentby

quotingotherscallingwaterboardingtorture.Exceptforabriefspateofarticles

in19021903intheNYTimeswhichquotedmostlymilitaryofficialsand

senators,almostallofthearticlesthatquoteotherscallingittortureappearedin

2007and2008.

TheNYTimesusedsoftertreatmentin66of281totalnewsarticles.Of

those66articles,30(45.5%)alsoquotedotherscallingthepracticetorture.Inthe

LATimes,softertreatmentwasusedin29of134totalnewsarticles.Softer

treatmentoverlappedwithotherscallingittorturein41.4%ofthearticles(12of

29).Similarly,intheWSJ,8of66totalnewsarticlesusedsoftertreatment.Of

those8,3(37.5%)alsoquotedotherscallingwaterboardingtorture.Finally,in

USAToday,softertreatmentisusedin12of18totalnewsarticles.Ofthose12

articles,4(33.3%)

also

quoted

others

calling

waterboarding

torture.

WhoIsBeingQuoted

Whenquotingotherswhocallwaterboardingtorture,thereisashiftin

whotheLATimesandtheNYTimesquotedovertime.

Before2007,theNYTimeshadonlyscatteredarticlesquotingothers.

However,beginningin2007,thereisamarkedincreaseinarticlesquotingothers,

primarilyhumanrightsgroupsandlawmakers.Humanrightsrepresentatives

predominateduringthefirsthalfoftheyear.However,beginninginOctober,

politicians

were

cited

more

frequently

labeling

waterboarding

torture.

Senator

JohnMcCainisthemostcommonsource,butotherlawmakersalsobegintobe

cited.By2008,thearticlesreferencesaremoregeneralsuchasbymany,or

manylegalauthorities.Strongerphrasessuchasmostofthecivilizedworld

alsobegintoappear.

TheLATimesfollowsasimilarpattern.In2007,thispapermostlyquoted

humanrightsgroupsandSen.McCain.Beginningin2008,however,more

generalreferencesbegantobeused,suchasbymanyandcritics.

SofterWordsUsed

Eachpaper

had

its

own

words

of

choice

when

giving

waterboarding

softertreatment.Thesewordswereconsistentlyusedwithineachpaper,though

12


13/22

theyvariedbetweenpapers.Before2004,softertreatmentwasvirtuallynever

used,andsothisdiscussionislimitedto20042008.16

TheNYTimesoverwhelminglyfavoredthewordharsh,usingitin53

of65instances(81.5%)ofsoftertreatmentbetween2004and2008.TheLATimes

usedharsh(11of27,or40.7%)andcoercive(12of27,or44.4%).USAToday

favoredcontroversial,usingitin50%ofarticles(6of12)givingsofter

treatment.TheWSJusedharsh(4of8,of50%)andaggressive(3of8,or

37.5%).

Opinionpiecesinthefourpapersgenerallyusedsoftertreatmentonly

rarely,makingpatternsdifficulttoestablish.TheWSJistheexceptiontothis,

usingsoftertreatmentin11pieces.Here,however,therewasnofavoredterm:

sevendifferentwordsorphraseswereused.

OpedArticlesandEditorials

Editorialsgenerally

treat

waterboarding

differently

than

op

eds,

though

thepapersarenotconsistentinthisvariation.Thecontrastisrevealingbecause

editorialpiecesprovidethemostdirectevidenceoftheviewsofapaperwhile

thechoiceofopedpiecesdeterminestheshapeofthedebatethepaperallowson

itspages.

FIGURE 9: NY Times, '05-'08, Editorials v.

Op-eds

0%

10%

20%30%

40%

50%

60%

Torture/Implying Negative

Treatment

No Treatment

Editorial

Op-ed

IntheNYTimes,as

Figure9demonstrates,

editorialpiecesweremore

likelytocall

waterboarding

torture

or

togiveitnegative

treatmentandlesslikely

togivethepracticeno

treatmentthanwereoped

articles.From2005to2008,

editorialarticlescalledwaterboardingtorturein55%ofthearticles(11of20).A

further30%(6of20)gavethepracticenegativetreatment.Only1of20editorials

(5%)gavethepracticenotreatment.Incontrast,opedpiecesgavethepracticeno

treatmentin38.5%ofcases(15of39).Noopedsusednegativetreatment.They

saidor

implied

that

waterboarding

was

torture

in

46.2%

of

articles

(18

of

39).

16FortheNYTimes,98.45%ofthearticlesdescribingwaterboardingusingsoftertreatmentare

fromthetimeperiod20012008.FortheLATimes,93%ofthearticlesthatusedsoftertreatment

camefromthetimeperiod20012008.

13


14/22

FIGURE 10: LA Times, '03-'08, Editorials v.

Op-eds

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%50%

60%

70%

Torture/Implying Negative

Treatment

Softer

Treatment

No Treatment

Editorial

Op-ed

TheLATimesshowedthereverserelationshipbetweenopedarticlesand

editorials,showninFigure

10.Intheperiod20032008,

editorialssaidorimplied

thatwaterboardingwas

torturein37%ofarticles

(10of27)andgaveno

treatmentin22.2%of

articles(6of27).By

contrast,64.3%ofopeds(9

of14)saidorimpliedthat

waterboardingwastorture.Theremainingopedsweresplitamongothers

callingittorture,softertreatment,andnotreatment.

IntheWSJ,inopedsbetween2005and2008,waterboardingwas

generallygiven

no

treatment

(12

of

16

op

eds,

or

75%).

By

contrast,

editorials

fromthesametimeperiodgavewaterboardingnotreatmentinonly38.1%of

articles(8of21)andgavesoftertreatmentin42.9%ofarticles(9of21).

InUSAToday,withalimitedsamplesize,therewaslessvariation

betweenthetreatmentofferedbytheopedarticlesandtheeditorials.Ofthe

editorials,57.1%(4of7)saidorimpliedthatwaterboardingwastorture,while

54.5%ofopeds(6of11)didso.Therestoftheeditorialsofferednotreatment(3

of7,or42.9%),whileequalnumbersofopedarticlesusedsoftertreatmentand

notreatment(2of11,or18.2%)todescribewaterboarding.

Thus,

while

there

was

often

a

sustained

difference

in

treatment

between

editorialsandopedarticleswithintheopinionsectionsofeachnewspaper,these

differencesvariedfrompapertopaper.

CONCLUSION

Theresultsofthisstudydemonstratethattherewasasudden,significant,

shiftinmajorprintmediastreatmentofwaterboardingatthebeginningofthe

21stcentury.Themediasmoderncoverageofwaterboardingdidnotbeginin

earnestuntil2004,whenthefirststoriesaboutabusesatAbuGhraibwere

released.Afterthispoint,articlesmostoftenusedwordssuchasharshor

coerciveto

describe

waterboarding

or

simply

gave

the

practice

no

treatment,

14


15/22

ratherthanlabelingittortureastheyhaddonefortheprevioussevendecades.17

Thereisalsoasignificantdiscrepancybetweenthepointofviewofferedbynews

articlesandopinionpiecespublishedinthesepapers.Opinionpiecesweremuch

morelikelytocharacterizewaterboardingastorture,suggestingthattheprivate

opinionoftheeditorsandcontributorsdidnotalignwiththeformalfacethe

paperswerepresentingintheirobjectivereporting.

Yetwhatcausedthischangeinwaterboardingstreatmentovertime?Our

datadoesnotgiveanyspecificreasonforthisshift,butmerelypointstothe

existenceofthischangeinsyntax.ApiecepublishedbythepubliceditorofThe

NYTimes,ClarkHoyt,18suggeststhatthesechoicesweremadedeliberatelyby

journalistsandtheireditors,perhapsinanefforttoremainneutralinthedebate

goingonintheU.S.Iftheclassificationofwaterboardingastortureisunclear,

Hoytsuggests,thenitisirresponsibleforjournaliststopreemptthisdebateby

labelingitassuch.

Thewillingness

of

the

newspapers

to

call

the

practice

torture

prior

to

2004

seems

torefutethisclaim.Accordingtothedata,foralmostacenturybefore2004there

wasconsensuswithintheprintmediathatwaterboardingwastorture.Yetonce

reportsoftheuseofwaterboardingbytheCIAandotherabusesbytheU.S.

surfaced,thisconsensusnolongerheld,despitethefactthattheeditors

themselvesseemtohavestillbeenconvincedthatwaterboardingwastorture,

oftenlabelingitassuchintheireditorials.

Theclassificationofwaterboardingisnotunclear;thecurrentdebate

cannotbesodivorcedfromitshistoricalroots.Thestatusquoantewasthat

17Giventhesheeramountofcoveragethepracticereceivedduringthistimeperiod,itispossible

thattheprevalenceofnotreatmentresultedfromanassumptionthatreaderswouldalreadybe

informed

about

the

practice.

However,

on

this

assumption,

the

number

of

articles

which

give

no

treatmentshouldincreaseastimepasses.Thisisnotthecase.Forexample,theLATimesgaveno

treatmentin33.3%ofnewsarticles(7of21)in2007butgavenotreatmentin19.5%ofarticles(8

of41)in2008.TheNYTimesusednotreatmentin50%ofnewsarticles(5of10)in2005,in57.1%

ofarticles(8of14)in2006,in24.5%(13of53)in2007andin24.2%(8of41)in2008.Similarly,in

theWSJ,notreatmentisusedin85%ofnewsarticles(17of20)in2007,butonlyin40%ofarticles

(16of40)in2008.Forthesepapers,then,insteadofincreasingasexpected,thenumberofarticles

withnotreatmentactuallydecreasedovertime.18

ClarkHoyt,TellingtheBrutalTruth,N.Y.TIMES,April25,2009,atWK12.

15


16/22

waterboardingistorture,inAmericanlaw,19internationallaw,20andinthe

newspapersownwords.Hadthepapersnotchangedtheircoverage,itwould

stillhavebeencalledtorture.Bystrayingfromthatestablishednorm,the

newspapersimplydisagreementwithit,despitetheirclaimstothecontrary.In

thecontextoftheirdecadeslongpractice,thenewspaperssuddenequivocation

onwaterboardingcanhardlybetermedneutral.

19Forexample,CourtMartialofMajorEdwinF.Glenn,Samar,P.I.,April1902(reprintedinLeon

Friedman,THELAWOFWAR:ADOCUMENTARYHISTORY,814(1972));CaseagainstMasatoshi

Sawamura(U.S.MilitaryCommission,Yokohama,1429April,1947)(Sawamurawasconvicted

ofviolationsofthelawsandcustomsofwarfor,interalia,watertortureofAmericanprisonersof

war,andwassentencedto30yearshardlabor);UnitedStatesofAmericav.HidejiNakamura,

YukioAsano,SeitaraHata,andTakeoKita(U.S.MilitaryCommission,Yokohama,128May,

1947.NARARecords,NND735027RG153,Entry143Box1025);EvanWallach,DropbyDrop:

ForgettingtheHistoryofWaterTortureinU.S.Courts,45COLUM.J.TRANSNATLL.468(2007).20SeeConventionAgainstTortureandOtherCruel,Inhuman,orDegradingTreatmentor

Punishment

art.

1,

Dec.

10,

1984,

S.

TREATY

DOC.

NO.

100

20

(1988),

1465

U.N.T.S.

85;

seealso

InternationalMilitaryTribunalfortheFarEast(IMTFE)RecordavailableatNationalArchives

andDiamondLibrary,ColumbiaLawSchool,Treasure,reproducedinfacsimileinTheTokyo

WarCrimesTrial(R.JohnPritchard&SoniaMagbannaZaideeds.,GarlandPublishingInc.,

1981);RobertD.Sloane,TheCostofConflation:PreservingtheDualismofJusAdBellumandJusIn

BellointheContemporaryLawofWar,34YALEJ.INTLL.47(2009);JobyWarrick,PeterFinn&Julie

Tate,RedCrossDescribedTortureatCIAJails:SecretReportImpliesthatU.S.ViolatedInternational

Law,WASH.POST,Mar.16,2009,availableathttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp

dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR2009031502724.html?nav=hcmodule.

16


17/22

AppendixA

CodingInstructions

SearchTerm, Title,

Use

the

title

that

appears

in

the

article,

not

the

one

that

appears

inthesearchresultsiftheyredifferent.

Author,Pleaseputeditorialifitsaneditorialandleaveablankifthereisnoauthorlisted.

Date,allinnumbers,nomonthnames. #ofwords,findinabstractinProquest,onsearchpageinother

databases.

FrontPage?,Yesorblank Link,and Opinion

piece?

Yes

or

no.

Generalframeofthearticledescribethemainthrustofthearticleasawhole.IsitaboutAttorneyGeneralMukaseysconfirmationor

investigationsintoAbuGhraib?IsitreportingonaPOWsexperiencesor

alocalinvestigationintoajail?

DepthofTreatmentdescribehowmuchattentionwaterboardinggetsinthearticle.Forthiscolumn,pleasedescribetheproportionofthearticle

thatisdevotedtowaterboarding,intheformof1%,10%,50%,etc.(Ifless

than1%,use


18/22

Torturethenarrativevoiceofthearticleitselfexplicitlyanddirectlyequatingitwithtorture.

Implyingitstorturewherethearticledoesntexplicitlysaythepracticeistorturebutstronglyanddirectlyimpliesthatitis.Thiswill

applytosituationswherethepracticeisgroupedwithothersthatare

torturebutthepracticeitselfisntexplicitlycalledtorture.

Otherscallingittorturewherethearticlereferencesorquotessomeoneelsecallingthepracticetorture.Inthiscolumn,justwrite

theirname,title,organization,(party)affiliation,whateverisrelevant

totheirstance.

Negativetreatmentwhenthetechniqueisdescribedbywordswithanecessarilynegativemoral/valuejudgmentattached.Forexample,

inhumanorabusive;checkthetermsortingbelowformore

examples.Besuretolistexactlywhatwordsareusedunderthe

columnnegative

words

used.

Softertreatmentwhenthetechniqueisdescribedbywordswithoutanynecessarymoral/valuejudgmentattached.Forexample,

softertreatmentincludesdescriptionslikeharshorcontroversial;

checkthetermsortingbelowformoreexamples.Besuretolistexactly

whatwordsareusedunderthecolumnsofterwordsused

Notreatmentthisiswheneithertheprocedureisjustdrylyexplainedorwhenthereisnoelaborationatall;donotusethiscolumn

ifanyoftheabovecategorieshavebeenused.

Misc.

a

catch

all

category

for

every

other

situation.

If

you

use

this

category,describeexactlywhatsgoingoninthearticle.

Itisveryimportantthatthesecategoriesbecodedwithexactlythesamewords.

Ifanarticlegivesthepracticenegativetreatment,makesureyouputyesunder

negativetreatmentandthenlistthespecificwordsundernegativewords

used.Dontdoyescalleditbarbaric.Thesameholdstruefortheother

columns;consistencyiskey.

Ifanarticlefitsmorethanonesituationhasotherscallingittortureandalso

givesit

negative

treatment,

code

both.

The

exception

to

this

is

if

there

is

any

overlapbetweenthetorture,implyingitstorture,negativetreatmentand

softertreatmentcolumns;theseareinahierarchythatgoestorture>

implyingitstorture>negativetreatment>softertreatment,whereyou

dontneedtofillinsomethingifanythingtoitslefthasbeenfilledin(i.e.dont

includesoftertreatmentiftheyalreadycalledittorture).Thisdoesnotapplyto

18


19/22

anyothercolumns.Ifthereisanunusualcasewhereyouthinkthismightbe

ignoringvaluableinformation,makeanoteofitintheMisc.column.

ThenextcolumnasksWhowastheviolator/victim?Listwhoperformedand

whoreceivedthewaterboardinginthatexactviolator/victimformat.

Thereareseveralcommonlyusedcategories.Forarticlesfromthecurrent

debate,wheretheU.S.iswaterboardingsuspectedterroristsordetaineesor

prisonersofonekindortheother,useU.S./prisoners.Forarticlesrelatingto

waterboardingFilipinosduringthePhilippineinsurgencyattheturnofthe

century,usethetermU.S./Philippines.

Forallotherinstances,iftheviolatororvictimareactingasa

representativeoftheirstate(e.g.soldier),onlyputtheirstate(e.g.Japan/China).

Thisisalsothecaseiftheyrecitizensinatimeofwarbeingtargetedasa

memberoftheirstate.Iftheyareactingasanindividual,thenbespecific(e.g.

robbers/deafmute

man)

unless

they

are

prisoners,

in

which

case

just

use

prisoners(e.g.Massachusetts/prisoners; Japan/prisoners). Whenthearticleis

justtalkingaboutwaterboardingwithoutreferencetoaspecificinstanceof

waterboarding,usegeneral.

ThefinaltwocolumnsareNotesandRelevantText.Notesisforany

notesofinterestaboutthearticleyoumayhaveindicateanyunusualor

uncommonthingsaboutthearticlethatyounoticed.InRelevantTextyou

shouldcopyandpasteintherelevantportionsofthearticles.Dontworryabout

howlongtheyareputineverythingthatisrelevant.

Afinalpoint:donotcodebookreviews,theaterreviews,moviereviews,letters

totheeditor,orarticlesthatdropthetermsasaonelinemetaphorcompletely

unrelatedtotheactualdiscussion(e.g.,thefallofthestockmarketwaslike

Chinesewatertorture.).

TermSorting:

negative:

cruelcausing

or

marked

by

great

pain

or

distress

brutal savage;cruel;inhuman;harsh;ferocious

inhuman lackingqualitiesofsympathy,pity,warmth,compassion,orthelike;

cruel;brutal

atrocious extremelyorshockinglywicked,cruel,orbrutal;dreadful;

abominable

tormenting toafflictwithgreatbodilyormentalsuffering;pain

19


20/22

degrading tolowerindignityorestimation;bringintocontempt;debase;

humiliate

grisly causingashudderorfeelingofhorror;horrible;gruesome

barbaric withoutcivilizinginfluences;uncivilized;primitive;of,like,or

befittingbarbarians

odious deservingorcausinghatred;hateful;detestable

humiliating loweringthepride,selfrespect,ordignityofaperson;mortifying

abusive treatingbadlyorinjuriously;mistreating

softer:

harsh ungentleandunpleasantinactionoreffect;grimorunpleasantlysevere;

stern;cruel;austere

objectionable causingortendingtocauseanobjection,disapproval,orprotest;

offendinggoodtaste,manners,etiquette,propriety,etc.;offensive

aggressivecharacterized

by

or

tending

toward

unprovoked

offensives,

attacks,

invasions,orthelike;militantlyforwardormenacing

coercive useofforceorintimidationtoobtaincompliance

improper notinaccordancewithproprietyofbehavior,manners

severe harsh;unnecessarilyextreme;grave;critical;causingdiscomfortor

distressbyextremecharacterorconditions,asweather,cold,orheat;

unpleasantlyviolent,asrainorwind,orabloworshock;difficulttoendure

baffling confusing,bewildering,orperplexing

controversial subjecttocontroversy;debatable

tough

vigorous;

severe;

violent

painful affectedwith,causing,orcharacterizedbypain;laborious;exacting;

difficult

wrenching Topullatthefeelingsoremotionsof;distress

20


21/22

AppendixB

SearchTermHits

Searchterm NYTimes LATimes WallStreet

Journal

USAToday

Waterboarding 266 100 102 47

waterboarding 38 63 5 8

waterboard 1426 2174 238 27

Waterboard 12 15 6 3

waterboard 1426 2088 238 27

waterboarding 38 63 5 8

watertorture 237 231 91 48

Submarino 116 174 24 1

simulated

drowning

56 47 19 8

mock

drowning

2 8 0 0

neardrowning 189 299 13 14

Submersionhead

water

44 102 1 100

Submersion

watertorture

4 104 1 100

formofmock

execution

0 0 0 0

watercure 470 336 16 3

water

treatment

1900 1229 1432 100

parrotsperch 18 21 2 0

feigned

drowning

5 2 0 0

torturelite 11 4 0 0

torturadel

agua

0 0 0 2

tormentode

toca

0 0 0 0

punishmentof

thepump

0 0 0 0

waterdetail 4 10 3 0

asiantorture 0 0 0 0

21


22/22

Swedishdrink 3 1 0 0

coldwaterdash 3 6 0 0

coldwater

process

4 12 0 0

Total

4808

7089

2196

496

Torture at Times Hks Students[1]

Documents