Recently NPR aired a story based on information obtained via torture. NPR did not perform the torture, nor did they witness it. But they knew that's where the information came from and aired the story anyway. In fact, the torture had been so recent that the victims were still bloody and one was sobbing, facts that were related in the original story.
I wish I could say I was outraged by the original story, but frankly I barely even heard it. I'm pretty groggy during my morning commute. However, they must have received quite a few letters, because Anne Garrels, the NPR Iraq correspondent, came on the air with Steve Inskeep on Thursday morning to try to justify her error in judgment.
It was very lacking in both logic and morals. Ms Garrels said that they believed the torture victims' story because "the details checked out," ignoring the fact that the details could have been fed to them. Worse, she tried to justify the use of the information by saying the torture had happened before they arrived on the scene. But that ignores the fact that the torture "worked" in the sense of getting the torturer's story on the air. Allowing the use of information obtained through torture as long as the reporter didn't witness it only encourages torture to hide in the shadow, not end.
And then at the very end was a line so ridiculous that it calls into question Ms Garrels' entire previous reporting from Iraq: "Wouldn't it have been worse if we aired the story but didn't mention the torture at all?" (paraphrased)
Yes. It also would have been worse if you'd tortured him yourself. Or if you'd exploded a nuclear weapon in New York. Or if you'd eaten a baby. The question is not how you could have done a worse job. The question is how you could have done a better job.
I explained my views the above issues in an email to NPR management on Thursday morning when I got to work. I also asked them to clarify (or formulate, more likely) a policy on information received via torture. Does NPR use this information or not, however it reached the reporter's ears?
Tonight I got a response from the Ombudsman:
Anne Garrels is one of the finest war correspondents of our time. She has spent the last five years in and out of Iraq, covering the war-ravaged country with a certain fearlessness that is awe-inspiring.
But listeners think it’s time for Garrels to come home.
I've thought that for quite some time.
If there was news in Garrels’ piece, it would be that NPR has definitive proof that Iran is behind recent violence. But that can’t be confirmed on the say-so of torture victims in front of their captors.
...
What really upset the 700-plus people who emailed or called is that NPR, well-known for careful reporting, would base a sensitive story on the unreliable words of men beaten into confessing. "What kind of journalism is this?" asked another e-mailer. "Since when do we consider bloody torture victims reliable sources of information?"
Since when, indeed. And will NPR continue to do so?
Garrels didn’t do a good job of satisfactorily justifying why she and her editor used tortured victims as sources.
...
I asked the foreign desk editor if he would share the thinking on this and was told that by putting Garrels on the air Nov. 1 to address listener complaints, they had answered all the questions.
But I don’t think they have. While I have a great deal of respect for Anne Garrels’ war reporting, evidence obtained through torture is not credible, nor is it good journalistic practice.
No, they most certainly haven't.
By the way, Garrels has left Baghdad.
Good.
But she will be going back.
WHAT??
(There is copyright notice at the bottom of the letter from NPR that I do not understand. If some tells me I can't block quote the above items, I'll be happy to rewrite those sections to be paraphrases rather than direct quotes.)