| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/30/2006 01:05:33 PM · #1 |
The following excerpts are from different publications following the release of Jill Carroll. I simply do not understand how one can be kept hostage, threatened with death, seen weeping on television broadcasts, then claim that "they treated me very well".
What????
Jan. 30: Weeping and wearing an Islamic veil, Carroll again appears on a video aired by Al-Jazeera, which does not play clear audio but reports that Carroll appeals for authorities to free all women prisoners in Iraq to help in winning her release.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- American hostage Jill Carroll, a freelance journalist released Thursday in Iraq after nearly three months in captivity, said she was "treated very well" while she was held.
"They never said they would hit me. They never threatened me in any way," she said in a TV interview after her release.
Message edited by author 2006-03-30 13:06:05.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2006 03:07:28 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I simply do not understand how one can be kept hostage, threatened with death, seen weeping on television broadcasts, then claim that "they treated me very well". |
I guess itâs a matter of perspective.
Was she treated well for a person spending several months in a five star hotel at her favorite vacation destination? No.
Was she treated well for a kidnap victim spending several months threatened with death unless certain demands are met? According to her, yes.
Was she physically or psychologically tortured or raped? Was she given adequate food and water? Was she given adequate shelter, bedding and toilet facilities? Was she allowed to rest? Did she have access to reading materials or other form of mental stimulation? Those are the measurements against which someone is considered âtreated wellâ for being a kidnap victim who is threatened with death unless certain demands are met.
Being treated poorly by just being âa kidnap victim who is threatened with death unless certain demands are metâ is a given.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2006 08:47:59 AM · #3 |
I understand your point.
To me, one who is seen in tears, as a captive, advocating a position favorable to her captors, is not being treated well. At the very least psychologically. Otherwise, why the tears?
For her to feel great relief at her release and therefore euphoric statements spew forth recalling a "gratitude" towards her captors for her "respectful" treatment, is something I understand. My impression from the media stories seemed to slant in favor of the kidnappers (aka terrorists) and from that I read a bias against our efforts there. In other words, my take on the reporting was just one more example of placing the terrrorists in the most favorable light while placing our efforts in the most inkind.
That is my rant.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2006 11:24:54 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 04:14:58 AM · #5 |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 05:11:29 AM · #6 |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 05:50:30 AM · #7 |
Typically doesn't apply with these terrorists - you tend to lose your head long before you could ever start to empathize. |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 08:24:25 AM · #8 |
I have heard of the stockholm syndrome. I also believed that she was under duress/euphoria when she was originally quoted. That however, does not explain the media bias, rushing to press with the most favorable position of the kidnappers while in other instances rushing to press with the most unfavorable reporting of the actions of our troops.
As I stated, the rant is on media BS.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2006 11:14:53 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Flash:
That however, does not explain the media bias, rushing to press with the most favorable position of the kidnappers while in other instances rushing to press with the most unfavorable reporting of the actions of our troops. |
I disagree with your interpretation and believe that youâre reading more into the story than is actually there. References to Jill Carroll being treated âwellâ was a statement about her general health and wellbeing after her release and for the benefit of those following the story (family, friends and the interested general public), they were not an endorsement of the activities of the kidnappers.
Additionally, from what Iâve read (though Iâm open to correction on any misperception), the media had been asked to tone down reporting too specifically on positive reconstruction efforts due those efforts becoming immediate targets of the insurgents after the publishing/broadcasting of said reports. So, what have you got left to report on? Report specifically on the bad; report obliquely on the good. The release of Jill Carroll turns out to be a âgoodâ story on which the media could report âspecificallyâ, so theyâre going to push it for all itâs worth.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2006 06:26:15 AM · #10 |
|
|
|
04/21/2006 06:46:37 AM · #11 |
| A bit of Stockholm syndrome, maybe? I dunno. Too early to think any harder. |
|
|
|
04/21/2006 08:15:40 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
[quote=Flash]
Additionally, from what Iâve read (though Iâm open to correction on any misperception), the media had been asked to tone down reporting too specifically on positive reconstruction efforts due those efforts becoming immediate targets of the insurgents after the publishing/broadcasting of said reports. |
What? That's the first I've seen that before.
You just need to know where to look for the good news:
//www.hood.army.mil/4ID/
//www.hood.army.mil/1stcavdiv/ - watch the dedication ceramony of the 1CD Memorial. I know 4 names on that wall...mine was almost on it.
//www.1ad.army.mil/default.asp
//www.1id.army.mil/
//www.bragg.army.mil/82dv/
//www.campbell.army.mil/newinternet/main.asp |
|
|
|
04/21/2006 11:08:49 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by RMyers1314:
What? That's the first I've seen that before. |
Thank you for the links (though I wouldnât necessarily count those as mainstream media).
As to the good news/bad news quantity of reporting, itâs only something I recall as a side note from an article in Newsweek (if Iâm not mistaken). The army had just helped repairing a water or sewage treatment plant of some sort in or in the outskirts of Baghdad, but the officer requested the reporter not to be too specific about the location of the water or sewage plant as that may invite attack or sabotage once the army had left the premises. The building was a non-descript government building and apparently many people in the neighborhood didnât even know its purpose. The article went on to state that this had become a problem when reporting on progress in Iraq; good news is an invitation for an insurgent attack, so some military officials had requested the author, as well as other members of the media, to not be too specific with locations of infrastructure repair projects with which they were involved.
The article is surely over six months old, perhaps even a year, and things may have changed (and Iâm not beyond a faulty memory on the details) ⦠and, frankly, Iâm currently too lazy on the web/busy at work to go hunting for the specific article or further detail.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 05:19:16 PM EDT.
