| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
The brouhaha in the blogosphere on post-Carroll release commentary
It was probably a good thing that I didn’t have time to blog this past weekend as things got pretty nasty in certain circles over comments made by certain bloggers in the aftermath of Jill Carroll’s release (see Joe Gandelman’s post here for an extensive write-up on what happened and what was said – click here for the initial reactions from a cross-section of the blogosphere).
Simply put, there were some in the blogosphere who took Carroll at her word over statements she made under duress. It wasn’t clear to me Thursday when she was released that she was still under duress during an interview that was aired on Baghdad TV where she talked about how “well” her captors treated her – in fact, the article I referenced did not make clear at all that was was under duress in the interview in which she said that (and in fairness to them they probably didn’t know, either) so I don’t think I was the only one who thought she made that particular statement of her own free will. Since that time, Carroll has issued a statement in which she pointed out that the statements she made in that interview as well as interviews prior were not made of her own free will, and that in fact she was threatened – many times:
Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not. The people who kidnapped me and murdered Allan Enwiya are criminals, at best. They robbed Allan of his life and devastated his family. They put me, my family and my friends–and all those around the world, who have prayed so fervently for my release–through a horrific experience. I was, and remain, deeply angry with the people who did this.
I also gave a TV interview to the Iraqi Islamic Party shortly after my release. The party had promised me the interview would never be aired on television, and broke their word. At any rate, fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely. Out of fear I said I wasn’t threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times.
Also, at least two false statements about me have been widely aired: That I refused to travel and cooperate with the US military and that I refused to discuss my captivity with US officials. Again, neither is true.
I want to be judged as a journalist, not as a hostage. I remain as committed as ever to fairness and accuracy–to discovering the truth–and so I will not engage in polemics. But let me be clear: I abhor all who kidnap and murder civilians, and my captors are clearly guilty of both crimes.
Once you read those two posts at Moderate Voice and then Carroll’s full statement, you’ll realize why things erupted as they did this past weekend. The best two responses to the criticism of Carroll’s comments she made while under duress that I’ve seen since trying to catch up on my reading this morning come from Rick Moran and Gina Cobb. Cobb wrote:
For now though, let Carroll enjoy her freedom again and save your anger for the terrorists who committed the barbaric crime of kidnapping Jill Carroll, killing another person in the ambush, and threatening for three months to kill Jill Carroll.
It was easy enough to be fooled into thinking that Carroll’s statements made after her release on Baghdad TV were made without coercion, but once Carroll made it clear they weren’t her real beliefs, some bloggers still insisted on ramping up the totally unncessary and unwarranted criticism of her, calling her things like a ‘terrorist sympathizer’ and calling the whole kidnapping a ’stunt’ (paraphrasing both), etc. This was a low point for the blogosphere in terms of showing how truly knee-jerk reactionary some people could be even in the face of the facts.
The blogosphere came to prominence in September 2004 during Rathergate, where several bloggers (most notably Power Line) relentlessly pursued the possibility that a memo used to impugn President Bush’s National Guard service by CBS’ Dan Rather was not authentic. That was a high note for political/current events bloggers who make noting bias in the media part of their writings almost daily. The reason for doing so is because there’s so much bias in the media today, mostly on the liberal end. That said, I’ll acknowledge for the record that most bloggers do have a bias one way or the other which they will freely admit. However, even with that said, the blogosphere risks unwittingly becoming just like those in the media they criticize with stunts like what we saw this past weekend with the hostile-in-some-quarters-reaction to Jill Carroll’s statements made under duress. It’s almost as though some of the comments made about her even after her clarification were made just to be controversial. I can’t figure out any other reason why those who believed everything she said in the videos didn’t issue a correction/apology after it became clear why she said what she did other than the ‘just to be controversial’ angle.
I know some will make a comparison of the reaction to Carroll’s statments to those made on the Christian Peacemaker Teams website after the rescue (not release) of three CPT hostages back on the March 23rd. I don’t think the comparison is a valid one, though, because there was just cause to criticize those who wrote the statement for the CPT website – people who clearly weren’t under any duress when they posted their statements about the ‘occupiers’ in Iraq, as well as the “release” of the three CPT hostages (which we know didn’t happen – they were rescued by the ‘occupiers’).
It’s great Carroll is safe and back on US soil today. Regardless of what her beliefs may or may not have be on whether or not we should be in Iraq, she’s made it clear that the statements she made while in captivity and at the Islamic Party of Iraq’s headquarters were made under duress and has also strongly condemned her captors – now that she’s safe to do so. I respect that and urge others to as well – and I frown on anyone on either side of the aisle who used the statements she made while in captivity to bolster their case that she was terrorist sympathizer with the implication being that she wasn’t worth rescuing. Some things take time to sort through before all the facts are clear – and this was one of those times when some people jumped the gun and maintained their positions even after it became clear why she said what she initially did.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
24 Responses to “The brouhaha in the blogosphere on post-Carroll release commentary”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
An apt illustration of why it’s usually not a good idea to jump the gun too quickly. Wait a little and see how things develop before commenting too much. But, as you mentioned with the Christian peaceniks, after their sorry performance and ingratitude, it was easy to misjudge Carrol’s comments in the heat of the moment. Too often released hostages have been of the ultra-leftist bent that turn around and continue their anti-US, anti-war propaganda, blaming the US for their captors actions. In this case it turned out that Carrol was not the same type of person, but it’s understandable that some would jump to that conclusion.
It’s almost always better to wait a little while to let the dust settle and see what’s really happening.
There are a lot of people that get most of there exercise jumping to conclusions.
“It was easy enough to be fooled into thinking that Carroll’s statements made after her release on Baghdad TV were made without coercion”
Why?
Who sups with the Devil must have a long spoon.
Andrew, Why are you fooled all the time? If you can answer that you answered your own question.
“Andrew, Why are you fooled all the time? If you can answer that you answered your own question.”
I wasn’t fooled on the Jill Carrol question. One of my colleagues used ot be her colleage, and told me great things about her. It was sad to see the way that the wingnuts have treated her.
It’s sad to see the way the terrorists treated her.
“It’s sad to see the way the terrorists treated her. ”
Goes without saying. But I know why they did what they did. I’m curious why ST thinks the way she does.
Why? You think ST mistreated her? I think her post here is a wonderful testament to how the legacy media should handle new information. What about you?
“Why? You think ST mistreated her?”
What I asked is above. ST said “It was easy enough to be fooled into thinking that Carroll’s statements made after her release on Baghdad TV were made without coercion”
And I asked: Why?
And I asked why are you fooled all the time? You should know the answer if and once you realize you are fooled. ST realized it and handled NEW info beautifully. Do YOU? Or do you continue to be fooled?
“Do YOU? Or do you continue to be fooled? ”
I told you I never was. I never found it easy to be fooled in this situation. I want to know what makes ST think it was easy to be fooled in this situation. Is it because Caroll worked for a Christian newspaper?
The answer is contained in my post already, andrew:
Please learn to read what I say in full before asking questions. You’ll find that they are probably already answered and you just missed them thanks to selective reading on your part.
“Please learn to read what I say in full before asking questions.”
I did. I wasn’t sure that was enough to ool you. Now I know that that was enough to fool you. I thought something was up, because I knew she hadn’t been treated well.
“I did. I wasn’t sure that was enough to ool you. Now I know that that was enough to fool you. I thought something was up, because I knew she hadn’t been treated well. ”
I’m so sure you did, andrew. No doubt she was secretly text messaging your ‘inside track’ with that information while in captivity.
A lot of people were fooled initially by the vagueness of early media reports of her interview on Baghdad tv. Fortunately I wasn’t one of the ones who joined in to lump her in with the terrorists who kidnapped her.
Hey Andrew…to quote Pink Floyd, one of these days I’m going to cut you into little pieces.
I’m not threatening you, I’m “treating you well.” At least according to your standards.
Dolt.
Oops, sorry Andrew, misread your “hadn’t been treated well” for “had.” Mea culpa.
“No doubt she was secretly text messaging your ‘inside track’ with that information while in captivity.”
Didn’t you see the video of her crying? That’s not being treated well. Diddn’t you know her translator was murdered? that’s not being treated well. No inside info is needed. The only inside info I had was a common acquaintance that told she was a fantastic and courageous person.
“I’m not threatening you, I’m “treating you well.” At least according to your standards.”
What the hell are you talking about?
“Didn’t you see the video of her crying?”
Yes.
“That’s not being treated well.”
No it wasn’t. But again, the second video told a different tale. When are you going to get it through your thick skull that where the confusion came in was over the second interview?
“Diddn’t you know her translator was murdered?”
Yes.
“that’s not being treated well.”
No, it’s certainly not treating her translator well, but it speaks nothing for how SHE WAS TREATED.
“No inside info is needed.”
No one said it was, but that’s sure as heck what you implied.
“The only inside info I had was a common acquaintance that told she was a fantastic and courageous person.”
Uh huh.
BTW, why does everything I write have to be spelled out slowly to you? Almost everyone else who comes here and comments gets what I say the first time around. Do you actually take the time to read what I write?
This lady has become a cartoon character. She has turned into something for everyone and then nothing at all. If you do not know who kidnapped her, which we do not, then you have no idea what she believes. Was her driver suppose to be killed or was that an acccident? Why was she “dropped” off at the Sunni political party office. She seems angry about the death of her interpreter, as anyone should be, but less angry about her own treatment. The Christian Science Monitor, is a Zionist mouthpeice, so they are suspect in their statements. Peace
Welcome back to full moderation, andrew. –ST
- From my prospective it was the TV interview AFTER she was released that was what confused everyone and caused the angry reactions from some, including myself in this instance. There was no reason to doubt her comments once she was free, but apparently, according to her implications from her latest words, she didn’t feel entirely safe until she was back in Germany.
- Or just maybe her Daddy told her to get her ass home and quit fooling around. I saw him on FOX and he was very carefully leveling his responses and comments, which left me with the impression he couldn’t have been more elated to see her safe, but was, lets say, very very upset she was running around Iraq in the first place.
- I still believe shes a Liberal journalist in spite of her words of “fair and balanced”, but at this point I’m thinking shes less “Liberal” than she was before all this happened.
- Maybe the cure for BDS is to give every Liberal a chance to see the Jihadists up close and personal. Might quiet some of the moonbat wailing, and educate their fevorised minds.
- Bang
I have a healthy paranoia and distrust of all terrorists.
When terrorists have a history of kidnapping and beheading, I find it is easy to think that she was mistreated and any information that would come from her would be coerced and forced.
Terrorists kidnappings and forced video tapes ‘admissions’ and calls for this country to leave Iraq, or to have women released, or any other demand made through a victim that sits on a floor with masked men who hold weapons over the kidnap victim does not bring me thoughts of having someone treated well.
From what I read, the driver was killed outright during the kidnapping. I will have to re-read that portion, but wasn’t the driver an Iraqi?
So I find it hard to believe that they would kill an Iraqi citizen (still need to verify that it was an Iraqi) and suddenly be ‘nice’ and cordial to an American.
Please excuse me while I do not hold my breath thinking that someone who kidnaps foriegners and has a history of beheadings, that their victims are suddenly house guests.