Jill Carroll
Jill Carroll's family says the widely released video she gave was made under duress.
The freelance writer for The Christian Science Monitor, who was freed by her captors Thursday and dropped off at a branch office of the Iraqi Islamic Party, was later escorted to the Green Zone by the U.S. military, the newspaper said Friday. ... The Monitor quoted her family as saying that her kidnappers had warned her against talking to the Americans or going to the Green Zone. They told her it was "infiltrated by the mujahedeen," the newspaper said.
Bergenheim said Friday that Carroll's parents, who spoke to her about the video, told him it was "conducted under duress." "What emerged was that they actually started filming this tape the night before and then there was a power outage. Jill had been told the questions, asked to translate them from Arabic into English," he told ABC's "Good Morning America." "When you're making a video and having to recite certain things with three men with machine guns standing over you, you're probably going to say exactly what you're told to say," Bergenheim added.
The U.S. Embassy spokeswoman in Baghdad declined to comment on the video, saying all queries regarding Carroll were being handled by her family and the Monitor.
So her statements quoted in Pretty Pictures and even those she made immediately susbsequent to her release may not reflect her true sentiment at all.
posted by wretchardthecat at 3/31/2006 02:56:00 PM
17 Comments:
Maybe in a month I'll be proven wrong but right now I'd toss her and whoever hired under the first bus that came by.
While I'm at it I'd toss Michael Ware and the whole editorial board of Time Magazine under there with her. Ware admitted in a Hewitt interview that he has to be less than honest when reporting about the insurgents, for his own safety, and so that he could maintain access to them.
Isn't there supposed to be something called journalistic integrity?
Journalistic integrity, like jumbo shrimp, is an oxymoron.
peterboston,
re: "journalistic integrity?"
That is journalistic integrity.
Folk like us being on this site and countless others shows what we think.
This morning on Fox News an intervew with a friend or family member of Jill Carroll said quite emphatically:
1. She is not ant-Pres Bush.
2. She is not anti-war.
3. The people who kidnapped her are absolutely terrible.
4. You will hear all of this clearly once she is back home.
If nothing else, it will be interesting to see how much coverage she gets if she comes back here and starts singing a different tune.
I'm with you Peterboston, but if she holds a news conference and says "Kill'em all and let God sort them out." I might come to think otherwise.
Here's a helluva war correspondent.
If you want some more, Whit--
It's surprising how the MSM didn't make more of the fact that the video was provided by the enemy, and tell their listeners / readers it should be taken with a large grain of salt (or perhaps even delayed its use until after verifying it with a number of parties).
You'd think that after Rummy told them how they were being used, and after the CNN debacle of reporting propaganda as news because they were being blackmailed by Saddam, the industry would be doubly cautious.
Well, maybe not. (imagine a room full of children running around a room with their hands over their ears screaming "I can't hear you!")
The only parties that lose when an untruth are told are the liar and the listener. The victim may suffer a short term loss (that Machiavelli and Sun Tzu argue can be used to the victim's advantage), but eventually the truth will come out and the deceived will punish both themselves and the liar.
My dad flew a B-17, Whit--he was shot down in '44 and spent 15 mo in Stalag Luft 1. Came home, met mom, and produced four of us ding-a-ling Boomers.
But y'know, Whit?
Those 'foolish, foolish people' endanger millions and take the lives of thousands every year!
Par for the course? Or can we do more to identify, isolate and muffle them?
Ari Tai,
The reason the MSM didn't go into the possibility of terrorist coercion and threat (at least the possibility) is because they so much believe what Ms. Carrol was saying.
Over at All Things Beautiful one hostile commentator sums up the attitude perfectly by calling us delusional that we don't believe the things Jill Carrol was stating, that we think something so obviously true must be coerced rather than freely stated.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/am-main0401,1,7415926.story?coll=chi-news-hed
If she made that video under duress, I believe she has an affirmative obligation now to repudiate her statements. Moreover, it is an urgent obligation.
I doubt she feels it.
It is wonderful to see her, her company and her family thanking the coalition's military. Unsaid is how many rescue attempts were made, and how many casualties were taken attempting same (for her and others that have been taken hostage).
I'm humbled by their example. They (specifically the U.S. soldier) bleed all over the world for us, for our (often not so good) friends, and even our enemies (i.e. we fight in a way that honors sanctuary from an enemy that despoils the word). Be it the World Wars, Korean, Vietnam, and all the small wars, there has not been a selfish bone in evidence in any of these, though we were often mightily provoked.
I wonder if the MSM will now write articles reflecting on Rummy's challenge on how they and their processes are a malleable tool of the enemy, and try to find a way out of the hole they have dug for themselves. The answer is obvious - use less process (if it bleeds it leads) and more intellect and judgment, and reward reporters who demonstrate same.
Pictures of her wearing that damned headscarf pre-kidnapping and being sensitive all over the place about the wonderful culture of Iraq make me think she's not going to be *too* tough ultimately on the poor misunderstood freedom fighters.
So, does the reportage we're getting from the mainstream media reflect the reporters' fears of getting kidnapped by the "mujahedeen"? Not a minor question.
It would seem that the news media have a vested interest in showing the most gruesome images from Iraq in the belief that creating the impression of a "quagmire" would make them less likely to be kidnapped or murdered by terrorists. And the terrorists certainly have a vested interest in enforcing de facto censorship on the American press.
Think about it in evolutionary terms. If every honest reporter gets killed, the only reporters who survive would be those who create a false impression.
Roggio, Yon and Michael Ware none of them have been killed. Frankly, I'm a little bit stunned that given Ware's recent braggadocio confessions, he's still walking around with his head on.
Vincent was killed.
Post a Comment
<< Home