For this spotlight, we're doing something a bit different. A cutting. It was the easiest way to get the two most reluctant to be highlighted (Elaine and C.I.) to agree. So this highlight focuses on their commentaries re: Jill Carroll. Elaine notes that it's not a bad idea since they were talking to each other and the points they made in their entries were ones they'd made to each other on the phone.
C.I. from Friday, March 31st starts us off.
Other Items (Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now! today)
Ms. Carroll, who grew up in Michigan and graduated from the University of Massachusetts, was part of a small corps of intrepid young freelance reporters in Baghdad. She had learned more Arabic than many and had cultivated a keen interest in Iraqi society.
[. . .]
Dr. Alan Manevitz, a psychiatrist and trauma expert at New York Presbyterian Hospital, said it would not be surprising if she suffered from a degree of Stockholm syndrome, a condition in which hostages become sympathetic to their captors. The name comes from a bank robbery in Sweden in 1973 in which hostages were held in a vault for six days.
"It's a form of brainwashing in a deprived state where victims emotionally bond with the captors in order to survive," Dr. Manevitz said. He stressed that he did not know Ms. Carroll and could speak about the syndrome only in general terms. "People can feel helpless and hopeless, and any small act of kindness — not killing her, giving her food, letting her have a shower -- can lead to bonding with the captor." The captor, he said, becomes both tormentor and savior.
The above is from Dexter Filkins and Kirk Semple's "Reporter Freed in Iraq, 3 Months After Abduction" in this morning's New York Times. Dexy and Simple Semple. Well Dexy's not reading press releases live from the Green Zone for a change, end note notes that he is in "Kansas City, Mo." Maybe these cut and paste jobs are easy to do from there? Yes, Carroll did learn Arabic. A skill that would have come in handy for Filkins last Saturday when he was being fed information from a non-neutral organization.
Now Martha notes Ellen Knickmeyer's "'Like Falling Off a Cliff For 3 Months': Uncertainty of Captivity Ends for Reporter in Iraq" (Washington Post). Read her story and Dexy's and see what stands out. (Hint, we excerpted the problem with Dexy's above.)
Is Jill Carroll the new Patti Hearst? Dexy seems to think she is. Probably questions her sanity just because she didn't spit and polish for all the military officials he did. But let's talk reality here, the Times' so-called expert is a shame to his profession. He doesn't need to offer conjecture at this point. He's never met with Carroll. He has nothing to base a potential analysis on. He, in fact, has far less information than anything Bill Frist had when Frist was diagnosing by TV. It's embarrassing. (The Associated Press did the same thing yesterday, that doesn't lessen the Times' shame. Elaine pointed it out in a phone call last night and I'd hoped to note the AP in the indymedia entry but didn't have time.) Dr. Alan can save the insta-analysis for a call-in show. But he can drop the "doctor" before his name if he's truly attempting to diagnose someone he's never spoken to, never personally observed and knows nothing about. If his quote's been carefully arranged by Dexy (no surprise if it has been), then it's Dexy shame alone. If not, Dr. Alan has a bit of explaining to do.
You don't tell anyone emerging from an experience what their experience was. You let them, especially in Dr. Alan's profession, process it. Insta-analysis, if practiced by Dr. Alan, is embarrassing. The the Times suggests that it has occurred is humiliating for the paper. Regardless, the dime store psyche doesn't belong in the article, it's an insult to Carroll and the paper should be ashamed. Congratulations to the Washington Post for avoiding falling into cliches and, in fact, potential medical malpractice.
[. . .]
Dr. Alan Manevitz, a psychiatrist and trauma expert at New York Presbyterian Hospital, said it would not be surprising if she suffered from a degree of Stockholm syndrome, a condition in which hostages become sympathetic to their captors. The name comes from a bank robbery in Sweden in 1973 in which hostages were held in a vault for six days.
"It's a form of brainwashing in a deprived state where victims emotionally bond with the captors in order to survive," Dr. Manevitz said. He stressed that he did not know Ms. Carroll and could speak about the syndrome only in general terms. "People can feel helpless and hopeless, and any small act of kindness — not killing her, giving her food, letting her have a shower -- can lead to bonding with the captor." The captor, he said, becomes both tormentor and savior.
The above is from Dexter Filkins and Kirk Semple's "Reporter Freed in Iraq, 3 Months After Abduction" in this morning's New York Times. Dexy and Simple Semple. Well Dexy's not reading press releases live from the Green Zone for a change, end note notes that he is in "Kansas City, Mo." Maybe these cut and paste jobs are easy to do from there? Yes, Carroll did learn Arabic. A skill that would have come in handy for Filkins last Saturday when he was being fed information from a non-neutral organization.
Now Martha notes Ellen Knickmeyer's "'Like Falling Off a Cliff For 3 Months': Uncertainty of Captivity Ends for Reporter in Iraq" (Washington Post). Read her story and Dexy's and see what stands out. (Hint, we excerpted the problem with Dexy's above.)
Is Jill Carroll the new Patti Hearst? Dexy seems to think she is. Probably questions her sanity just because she didn't spit and polish for all the military officials he did. But let's talk reality here, the Times' so-called expert is a shame to his profession. He doesn't need to offer conjecture at this point. He's never met with Carroll. He has nothing to base a potential analysis on. He, in fact, has far less information than anything Bill Frist had when Frist was diagnosing by TV. It's embarrassing. (The Associated Press did the same thing yesterday, that doesn't lessen the Times' shame. Elaine pointed it out in a phone call last night and I'd hoped to note the AP in the indymedia entry but didn't have time.) Dr. Alan can save the insta-analysis for a call-in show. But he can drop the "doctor" before his name if he's truly attempting to diagnose someone he's never spoken to, never personally observed and knows nothing about. If his quote's been carefully arranged by Dexy (no surprise if it has been), then it's Dexy shame alone. If not, Dr. Alan has a bit of explaining to do.
You don't tell anyone emerging from an experience what their experience was. You let them, especially in Dr. Alan's profession, process it. Insta-analysis, if practiced by Dr. Alan, is embarrassing. The the Times suggests that it has occurred is humiliating for the paper. Regardless, the dime store psyche doesn't belong in the article, it's an insult to Carroll and the paper should be ashamed. Congratulations to the Washington Post for avoiding falling into cliches and, in fact, potential medical malpractice.
Now we go to Elaine from early Saturday, April 1st:
"The first principle of non-violent action is that of non-cooperation"
"Carroll Criticized For Saying Captors Treated Her Well" (Democracy Now!)
Meanwhile, Jill Carroll is already coming under attack for saying that she was treated well by her captors. Writing for the National Review, John Podhoretz wrote: "It's wonderful that she’s free, but after watching someone who was a hostage for three months say on television she was well-treated because she wasn’t beaten or killed -- while being dressed in the garb of a modest Muslim woman rather than the non-Muslim woman she actually is -- I expect there will be some Stockholm Syndrome talk in the coming days."
I spoke about the above nonsense to C.I. on Thursday night. I'd just gotten home and was checking my messages when I had one from a friend who had read an Associated Press article online that brought up this syndrome and did so via a therapist. C.I. was working on "And the war drags on ...(Indymedia Roundup)" and wasn't able to hunt down the article. (Also didn't have time and I didn't mean for time to be "made.") C.I. wrote about it Friday morning when the New York Times repeated this nonsense.
[. . .]
Now I'm not surprised that the National Review runs with the nonsense. But for supposedly respectable news organizations like the Associated Press and the New York Times to do the same is just appling. There is no reason for that to appear in journalism unless the journalism is tabloid journalism. I will assume the doctor was asked to offer conditions under which the syndrome might occur. Possibly he thought he was providing background and insight into a possibility that a reporter might later use if he or she had some facts. However, Dexter Filkins has no facts. (Is anyone surprised by that?) This is just tabloid journalism. The press seems to have confused itself with Dr. Phil. It's not the purpose of the press to provide the quick fix analysis. I'm unfamiliar with the New York Times ever asking a therapist to weigh in on possibilities for the Bully Boy. So exactly why is it okay for them to speculate on the mental health of Jill Carroll?
That's what they've done. They've planted things against her that will stay in people's minds. Was Jill Carroll treated well? She says that's so. Until she says different, that's what you go on.
From a medical point of view, this is akin to telling a woman she's been raped. She may have been and she may not have been but it's not your job to put the prospect into her head. What happened to Carroll happened to her and she will need to process it, not the Times and not a doctor who has never treated her. Planting these seeds of doubt against her is not good press nor is it good medicine. I find it outrageous and offensive. I also have strong doubts that if it had been "Jeff Carroll," we would have seen this happen. In fact, we haven't seen that happen. No one's attempted to "diagnose" a male. Not the ABC reporter who was hurt in Iraq, not the three male Christian Peace Teammakers who left Iraq. But with a woman, we can "diagnose."
"Hysterical." "Penis envy." Take your pick. There are all these "conditions" that women have historically been found to have. It was bad press, it was bad medicine, and it was sexist.
From early on in the kidnapping, there were calls not to harm Carroll from Arab groups and Arab media. If the conditions she self-reports are true (and no one has any reason to doubt that they are at this point), that's probably one reason she was treated the way she was. Another reason is that she was familiar with the culture and could speak of it (to her captors) in an informed manner. That's not something Dexter Filkins could do, in all his time in the Green Zone, he apparently couldn't even bother to learn the language. (How he qualifies as a "foreign correspondent" is anyone's guess.)
Elements of the press are displeased with her statements. Not just that Carroll reports that she wasn't harmed but the reported statements regarding the occupation itself. Possibly this attack on Carroll (and "diagnosing" her in such a manner that suggests she's unable or unfit to offer credible testimony is an attack) results from the fact that a lot of fluffers have misled the public for some time now and they take offense to the fact that she's putting out a narrative counter to their own? (That's not a medical diagnosis. That's a critical observation of the press.)
Whatever it is, it's disgusting. I'm actually remembering that they did a similar thing with an Italian journalist. I'm sure it's just "luck" that the journalist was also female.
That's what they've done. They've planted things against her that will stay in people's minds. Was Jill Carroll treated well? She says that's so. Until she says different, that's what you go on.
From a medical point of view, this is akin to telling a woman she's been raped. She may have been and she may not have been but it's not your job to put the prospect into her head. What happened to Carroll happened to her and she will need to process it, not the Times and not a doctor who has never treated her. Planting these seeds of doubt against her is not good press nor is it good medicine. I find it outrageous and offensive. I also have strong doubts that if it had been "Jeff Carroll," we would have seen this happen. In fact, we haven't seen that happen. No one's attempted to "diagnose" a male. Not the ABC reporter who was hurt in Iraq, not the three male Christian Peace Teammakers who left Iraq. But with a woman, we can "diagnose."
"Hysterical." "Penis envy." Take your pick. There are all these "conditions" that women have historically been found to have. It was bad press, it was bad medicine, and it was sexist.
From early on in the kidnapping, there were calls not to harm Carroll from Arab groups and Arab media. If the conditions she self-reports are true (and no one has any reason to doubt that they are at this point), that's probably one reason she was treated the way she was. Another reason is that she was familiar with the culture and could speak of it (to her captors) in an informed manner. That's not something Dexter Filkins could do, in all his time in the Green Zone, he apparently couldn't even bother to learn the language. (How he qualifies as a "foreign correspondent" is anyone's guess.)
Elements of the press are displeased with her statements. Not just that Carroll reports that she wasn't harmed but the reported statements regarding the occupation itself. Possibly this attack on Carroll (and "diagnosing" her in such a manner that suggests she's unable or unfit to offer credible testimony is an attack) results from the fact that a lot of fluffers have misled the public for some time now and they take offense to the fact that she's putting out a narrative counter to their own? (That's not a medical diagnosis. That's a critical observation of the press.)
Whatever it is, it's disgusting. I'm actually remembering that they did a similar thing with an Italian journalist. I'm sure it's just "luck" that the journalist was also female.
Finally, back to C.I. later Saturday morning:
NYT: Edward Wong tells you that questions about Carroll were raised by a video (as opposed to, say, the press?)
The video had raised questions about whether Ms. Carroll was suffering from Stockholm syndrome, in which hostages become sympathetic to their captors, or had made the statements either out of fear or as a practical matter, to facilitate her release.
Get ready for another attempt to smear Carroll. The above is from Edward Wong's "Freed Reporter in Recovery in U.S. Zone in Baghdad" in this morning's New York Times. Let's be clear here, the video didn't raise questions. A video can't raise questions. It's a video. It's not interactive. The press raised questions. Coming under some deserved criticism for their portrayals, they now want to pin the blame on a video. That's how the press works. When applause fills the auditorium, "We did it." When boos and hisses are the greeting, we learn that a video raises questions.
Elaine's got a wonderful piece on the way Carroll's been portrayed in the media: "The first principle of non-violent action is that of non-cooperation." Note that, as Elaine points out, they don't do that with the male hostages or male journalists. It's only the women that they question and smear. And yesterday's article by Dexter Filkins and Kirk Semple was a smear. It was also a sexist smear. A woman says something you don't agree with and she must be suffering from a "syndrome." Had she not been held hostage, would Dexy and Semple have proffered that Carroll must have been getting her period? Would PMS have gone down as the cause?
Semple receives an end credit but not Dexy. That surprised me at first and then I realized that Filkins couldn't work on the eve of what is, no doubt, for him a religious holiday -- today is, after all, April Fool's Day.
The Associated Press has an article, Matt Moore's "Freed U.S. Journalist Lands in Germany." And, unlike the Times, they just move on. They don't try to justify or minimize their actions. (The AP also popularized the diagnose-medical-conditions-via-press-reports.) Maybe the Times should have done likewise?
Get ready for another attempt to smear Carroll. The above is from Edward Wong's "Freed Reporter in Recovery in U.S. Zone in Baghdad" in this morning's New York Times. Let's be clear here, the video didn't raise questions. A video can't raise questions. It's a video. It's not interactive. The press raised questions. Coming under some deserved criticism for their portrayals, they now want to pin the blame on a video. That's how the press works. When applause fills the auditorium, "We did it." When boos and hisses are the greeting, we learn that a video raises questions.
Elaine's got a wonderful piece on the way Carroll's been portrayed in the media: "The first principle of non-violent action is that of non-cooperation." Note that, as Elaine points out, they don't do that with the male hostages or male journalists. It's only the women that they question and smear. And yesterday's article by Dexter Filkins and Kirk Semple was a smear. It was also a sexist smear. A woman says something you don't agree with and she must be suffering from a "syndrome." Had she not been held hostage, would Dexy and Semple have proffered that Carroll must have been getting her period? Would PMS have gone down as the cause?
Semple receives an end credit but not Dexy. That surprised me at first and then I realized that Filkins couldn't work on the eve of what is, no doubt, for him a religious holiday -- today is, after all, April Fool's Day.
The Associated Press has an article, Matt Moore's "Freed U.S. Journalist Lands in Germany." And, unlike the Times, they just move on. They don't try to justify or minimize their actions. (The AP also popularized the diagnose-medical-conditions-via-press-reports.) Maybe the Times should have done likewise?
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
