National Review Columnist Insults Jill Carroll

[Hissyspit]

Via Huffington Post:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/30/podhoretz-attacks-carroll

John Podhoretz Attacks Jill Carroll

Today, Christian Science Monitor reporter Jill Carroll released after three months of being held in captivity in Iraq by kidnappers. The National Review’s John Podhoretz responded by attacking her mental state:

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.

This is a day that we should celebrate Jill Carroll’s courage. She put herself in danger to try to give the world a more accurate picture of Iraq. It is totally inappropriate to assume that her description of how she was treated is motivated by anything other than a desire to tell the truth.

Podhoretz owes Jill Carroll an apology.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. What about only "a red-hot needle in the eyeball" counting as torture?

Didn't that subject just come up at an Abu Ghraib hearing?

--p!

[chicofaraby]

2. I've been on Yahoo this morning.

The ultra right wing is attacking Jill Carroll as if she has done something wrong. It's weird.

I thought they wanted "good news" out of Iraq?

[Hissyspit]

4. She did do something "wrong." She is a reporter trying to tell the truth.

About Iraq.

[endarkenment]

5. They wanted a dead white woman.

Is there any other explanation for their anger?

[Love Bug]

21. No, they wanted a raped, dead white woman

Those sickos always love to imagine some dead woman as being raped first. That's why those "missing white woman" stories are so popular -- they are titillated by them.

[Marie26]

14. Short advice: Don't. nt

[DrunkenMaster]

51. the yahoo cons are disgusting re: JC

There were many threads lamenting the fact that she was not raped repeatedly. Disgusting.

[Inland]

3. He hates for exactly trying to give the world an accurate view

Wearing the garb of the "enemy" in order to do so, too, she's a traitor! Why doesn't she spew a litany of hate for all of "THEM", like a good american!

[Elidor]

6. Shorter Podhoretz:

"Pay no attention to anything this person says: only someone viewing the situation from a distance of several thousand miles has sufficient objectivity to see how things really are in Iraq."

[Hissyspit]

9. Um...

What a fucking chickenshit/hawk he is. That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

[ugarte]

7. Waiting for a Neo-Con to apologize? That'll be the day.

Podhoretz has a lot more than Jill Carroll to apologize for.

[yurbud]

8. he hadn't noticed she dressed that way BEFORE she was kidnapped?

[Nickster]

11. I was just thinking the same thing. Not to mention, she seemed to have

accepted Iraq as her home.

[wicket]

10. Absolutely disgusting

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[Marie26]

12. Oh, bull.

He wouldn't say that if a right-wing commentator was kidnapped. He's saying that because he suspects most independent journalists are terrorist sympathizers anyway. The video is the same thing that all hostages say, not evidence of any "Stockholm Syndrome." This makes me mad; he does owe her an apology.

[0007]

56. He's not man enough to realize his own childish behavior.

Must have got fired up from listening to the stupid freepers.

[sui generis]

13. I'm going to be a contrarian here

I am sure she is a good hearted person and had best interests in mind, but it seems that the great majority of abducted people who make the news are christian proselytizers.

I have a rather harsh opinion of that, and I don't for one moment buy into the "she was just a journalist" crap (for the Christian Science Monitor) that the news was emphasizing.

It may have saved her life but it's dishonest. Let's face it, there is a ridiculous amount of evangelical "mission" going on. In my world it's tragic that doing good requires affiliation with religion of any kind, and it's tragic that she wasn't reporting on Appalachian poverty or American "illegal immigrant" poverty instead of this glowing opportunity to be YET ANOTHER CHRISTIAN HERO SLASH MARTYR in Iraq.

I'm not trying to be mean or belittle her personally, but I think the problems that we're having delivering aid are based on our rationale for being there to begin with.

[BootinUp]

16. CSMonitor

is a serious news source AFAIK. Not some evangelical rag on a mission.

[sui generis]

20. now THAT was funny

"not some evangelical rag on a mission"

It's all evangelical from this side of the fence, but my point was more about rationale than flavor of belief. How many jews and muslims work for CSM?

Why does a religious organization market it's "christianity" right in its title if it is truly non-evangelizing? If we have to split hairs on these answers, do you believe that modern fundamentalist muslims who are already predisposed to despising christianity are going to split hairs?

I'm not saying that they aren't doing good things or that the people on the ground are just as cynical as my views on the subject; but if an organization came into the gay ghetto (wherever that is) and started helping poor gay people and had a "ExGay Science Monitor" in the title there aren't a lot of activist gays who would take to that very warmly, although we probably would just throw a fabulous block party instead of kidnap and behead anyone.

[BootinUp]

27. Why not read the about page....

Why not read one page about the paper before accusing its journalists of pushing religion (intentionally) in Iraq.
http://www.csmonitor.com/aboutus/about_the_monitor.html

I understand peoples aversion to religion these days, but your mainly speaking from ignorance. I have used the paper as a source of info on several occasions and it is quite professionally done. There is one article a day I understand of a religious nature for people who buy the paper for that. I have never looked at it.

I guess that when she was reporting over there you really figure she differentiated herself from the other American journalists. I suggest that she wouldn't have been doing her job well if she didn't focus on the job of being a journalist. But since we are just guessing on how she did her job this is kind of a waste of time. Maybe it would be better to look at some of her work. Naa, just go on bashing anything associated with religion, don't worry about facts.

[sui generis]

30. nuance

it is ENTIRELY lost on some here. On you in fact, since I don't want to be accused of being unclear.

"bash?"

I'll tell you what, here's a bash: some people can't stop being persecuted christians even when none were being persecuted.

I was talking about rationale. Maybe I should have said perceived rationale.

Bashing. Ignorant. Nice -- reading comprehension is a good thing. Judgmental persecuted christians, well if you're not one it's pretty hard to tell the difference after your post.

[Marie26]

31. There's not a lot of nuance

in your posts. It seems to be "Christian" = "BAD". And I'm not even a Christian! It's a little fanatical. Please try to step back for a second & look at this paper and this reporter instead of making misguided assumptions.

[BootinUp]

32. I had to re-read

your first post, because I am dumbfounded as to how you are trying to spin it. Its sad that we cannot find some agreement here. I could have been more nuanced and used less judgmental words in my posts true. I shall have to try harder, but would it have changed anything of substance? You seem to want to avoid substance.

[sui generis]

34. true

still a little judgemental but here's a better explanation.

again though "nothing of substance" and "spinning", not so friendly.

for your reading pleasure, judgement not required:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=794028&mesg_id=794813

[BootinUp]

38. That was a good post

And I do understand where you are coming from there.

[Marie26]

28. It's not funny, it's true

I'm sure many jews & muslims work for CSM. You're being blinded by the word "Christian" here into making some unfounded assumptions. Try reading some of the articles from their website to get a "flavor" of what that newspaper is all about. Many, many, journalists have been abducted or killed because they are vulnerable targets, not because of any "Christian" agenda. Carroll was abducted because she was someone the insurgents could use as a hostage, not because of the paper she worked for.

http://www.csmonitor.com/

[sendero]

26. The CSM...

.. is one of the handful of journalism sources that I trust implicitly, and I'm not a Christian :)

[TahitiNut]

53. I agree. I've read it for decades and find it totally reputable.

Since the 60s, I've tended to rely more on the CSM, NYT, and WaPo than any other newspapers. The NYT and WaPo have some 'out there' columnists and, more recently, reporters with a clear bias, but they've been the most relaible in the long-term. I've never found an article in the CSM that even approached obvious bias.

[longship]

60. CSM is a *very* respected news source.

I have been a reader of the Christian Science Monitor for decades. My family subscribed to it when I was a teen-ager over forty years ago. It was then, and is now, a newspaper with absolutely top credentials and a reputation for very responsible journalism.

I am an atheist and I don't give a tinker's cuss what their religious ideology is. The CSM is a damned good newspaper.

BTW, nobody in my family is Christian Science, either.

[Marie26]

17. That's wrong

That's so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. The "Christian Science Monitor" is not a christian proselytizing paper; instead, it's one of the most objective, fair & well-respected newspapers in the world. Carroll was not a missionary, she was a journalist who had worked at the Wall Street Journal & wanted to pursue her dream of becoming a foreign correspondent. She did not try to "impose" Christianity on Iraq; she wasn't there to impose anything, only to observe & report on life in Iraq. And she did that w/bravery & compassion for the Iraqis. She WAS NOT a Christian martyr; she was a journalist. If you can't understand the difference between a missionary & a reporter, I'm not sure I can help you. Try reading some of Carroll's articles for the CSM, she's really a great reporter.

[sui generis]

22. discussion of nuance here

edited to be nicer.

I understand how to split this hair forty ways.

I don't believe that people who already think this is a christian crusade are willing to split the same hairs.

If I were a serious journalist the last, very last media outlet I'd work directly for would be the Christian Science Monitor in the middle east or in south asia.

I'm sorry I don't buy into any organization that puts "christian" in how they describe their title and scope as not proselytizing, however subtly. No "help" required there.

I also understand the nuance that you can have "christian" in your title and be a respected news organization, again no help required. I'm just saying that there are an awful lot of "christians" being abducted in Iraq - and nobody there is splitting hairs the way we love to do here.

[Marie26]

25. It's not splitting hairs

I edited mine to be nicer, too. :) I'm not sure how it's "splitting hairs" to distinguish the Christian Science Monitor from fundamentalist missionaries. What you're doing is similar to comparing the NY Times to the 700 Club or something. - they're totally different organizations & missions. I agree that Iraqis might not know the difference, but anyone w/familiarity w/newspapers knows that the "CSM" is unbiased, well-respected, and w/o a POV. In fact, the Monitor is one of the few papers that has actually given continued, independent assessments of the situation in Iraq. Most serious journalists would jump at the chance to work at such an organization. Carroll traveled & worked w/Iraqis to report on how the situation affected them, & had in-depth knowledge of the local politics of the region. I think you do her a disservice by dismissing her as a "Christian."

[sui generis]

33. well I will be completely honest here

not to put myself up for flaming. I have been an atheist my entire adult life and so I automatically bypass reading the CSM or anything I might even remotely construe to be associated with religion - let's be honest there are every kind of news input out there, so my personal "filter" is avoid it if it has ANY overt relationship to anything religious in any way, and the title is enough for me. That may be both principled and irrational at the same time, I understand, but that's an entirely different discussion.

So that takes care of explaining my personal bias against them, whether they are a great news organization or not. If CNN or the major news networks started adding "christian" to their title, I would likewise stop listening to them, just as I don't listen to Fox, however rational or irrational that is.

But enough about me - if I don't distinguish for my own possibly irrational reasons, why would somebody on the street in Baghdad distinguish?

I'll revise my opinion about her particular case based on the level headed responses here, but as someone who honestly has a dislike of christian missionary and evangelical goals (actually not limited to christians!), it does bother me that every single person who makes the news as an abductee has "christian" mentioned in the same breath by the news and it's starting to seem like a pattern.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about anything here - just explaining my own view.

[LostinVA]

44. They didn't say anything about her being a Christian

just that she worked for the CSM. What you;'re saying is no different than saying they ALWAYS have to mention something about New York, if a journalist from the NYT was abducted. Seriously -- that's how nonsensical it is.

And, this is THE most unbiased MSM paper on the US. It is a wonderful media outlet.

Notice I'm not Christian.

[sui generis]

47. I've explained myself

adequately to anyone who wants to read this far. Your example about New York was a long overstretch in light of what I said and know and restated, and it missed. But to address your use of "they"

I'm up at 3:50 a.m. every weekday. I catch roughly 20 minutes of ABC, another 15 of CBS and occasionally, if I'm feeling extra bullshit proof, a few minutes of CNN instead of Bloomberg as I get the day started and out the door. I have heard all three NETWORKS describe her as a christian, but actually, as stated, I have watched all three networks say that about virtually every kidnapee they choose to give focus to - just an additional tag of information designed to make you feel horror about the poor christians being held by muslim extremists. I'm not apologizing for being cynical - I'm just relating my view and experience.

So by "they" I assume you mean the CSM, and not the networks. If you HAVE read this far, then you would know I've backed off my assertion about the CSM.
My stance on reading unbiased journalism from a company that identifies itself with christianity is the same as yours would be (presumably) if HotGaySexWithMinors Science Monitor was a reputable and unbiased news source.

Judging me as being nonsensical is being judgemental and nonsensical yourself, especially given the explanation of my stance above. Likewise I would not be making any points with you trying to convince you that you were ignorant because you elected to read syndicated material from sources that didn't require a titular affilation with christianity. I might even condescend (I'm good at that! :P) to forgive you for thinking that every reporter at HotGaySexWithMinors Science Monitor was most likely gay, regardless of your initial bias against it as a qualified unbiased news source.

I guess you've noticed that I'm not christian . . .

[Marie26]

59. Thanks for the sincere post

That helps to understand your position. We all have our own stances on this issue. As an athiest, I can see how you would react negitavly to the "Christian" title of the paper. It does seem like there's a pattern of abduction of Christian aid workers, perhaps because, as you point out, religious people are more likely to undertake this sort of work. I do think that this act is part of a seperate, equally disturbing, trend of abducting Western journalists. I hope we won't have to hear about any more abductions in Iraq, though I fear that there will be.

[LostinVA]

42. The CSM is one of THE most well-respect newspapers in the world

That is a fact. She was not a missionary, and Christian Scientists are NOT Evangelia missionaries... far from it.

Good grief.

[sui generis]

48. read.

read read read read read

reading is fundamental.

Good grief yourself.

[Jacobin]

52. Hey!! She is NOT an employee of the CSM

She is a contract journalist selling stories to various papers and magazines, ONE of which is the CSM. She happened to be working on one for the CSM when she was kidnapped, ergo the "she was a CSM journalist" crap reported in the medial.

I don't believe in or worship any ghosts in the sky, but I can tell you the CSM is not a fundie proselytizing paper and can be counted on to be a reasonably good news source and FAR FAR better than the NYT, WaPo or their ilk.

[sui generis]

55. argh. it's too late to edit my post or I would have

anyway, lots more in text between here and there but no doubt we'll have the evening crowd in here too flinging spittle and poop at me soon.

:rofl:
:hi:

Some days I find it's best to wear one's Depends upon one's head here.

Anyway, tangent; my point wasn't so much about the CSM as the fact that OTHER networks always seem to have to mention the christianity and christian charity of the latest kidnapee. There are several subtle things there (besides my obvious distrust of the media in general):

1. yes they're all doing good works, just trying to get by.
2. no we shouldn't be there to begin with or nobody would be kidnapped
3. the question I have (moved on from Jill now, admitted my bad) why is it a proportionately higher number of "christians" are touted as being missionary christians by mainstream news outlets?

[Hissyspit]

23. Christian Science Monitor - REAL JOURNALISM

Nothing to do with proselytizing.

[platimum]

19. I hope JP --and everyone else today....

...can simply be glad she is alive to tell about it. I know I am.O8)

[wicket]

37. Same here

BTW, Welcome to DU!

:hi: :toast:

[MADem]

29. Have you even READ her reporting??? Obviously not, or you wouldn't

make such a halfassed comment.

She IS a reporter, and a damned good one. She took the time to go to Jordan ahead of her time in Iraq, to learn Arabic, and she wore hijab in order to blend in and move about, BEFORE she was abducted. Why? She was a lancer with a contract with CSM, not a staffer. She had no security detail, no uparmored Mercedes, only herself, a translator to help her because her Arabic was not great, and rental cars and taxis.

You may not be "trying to be mean" but you haven't a clue as to her background or her motivations. And you are DEAD WRONG. Shame on you.

[sui generis]

35. MADem

edited for civility

please do not use the phrase "shame on you" here.

I have a right to my opinion without being shamed for it. Anyway the thread develops the conversation, and I am capable of changing my mind when all the spittle and poop stops flying.

[MADem]

39. I am sorry if you are offended

But you did shoot off an uninformed opinion, and I took strong exception to it. Read some of Jill's impressive work, and then tell me she's a wacky evangelist:

http://www.alternet.org/authors/7105/

Stories by Jill Carroll


Mourning Marla
Intrepid humanitarian aid worker Marla Ruzicka died in Baghdad Saturday when her car was caught in an insurgent attack.
Posted on Apr 18, 2005


The Evolution of an Insurgency
Attacks on U.S. troops may be down since January, but they are also getting much more sophisticated.
Posted on Apr 11, 2005


Two Years After the War
An unrelenting insurgency, pervasive chaos, little electricity or water, and widespread unemployment. After two years of occupation, Iraq looks pretty much the same.
Posted on Mar 21, 2005

She was one of the best reporters on the ground out there. Astounding effort for one so young.

[sui generis]

40. I was talking about bigger issues than Jill

later in the thread I retracted that opinion. I'm not interested in Jill personally, and I think I've tried to clarify that sufficiently.

Likewise the first time I talked about the phenomenon of missing blondes in Aruba, and their ilk, I was accused of hating Natalee, blondes, white chicks, and apparently my own mother.

You did shoot some words out of your ass too as I recall - your "exception" is not worth any more than mine is.

[sui generis]

36. and another thing

read the rest of the thread.

[LostinVA]

41. The CSM is a GREAT paper -- about the only mainstream one I trust

She was a journalist.... period.

[sui generis]

49. one note

that's all she got. And she keeps blowin' it. Instead of reading.

Just one. Please don't make me say "thar she blows again".

sheesh.

[Lavender Brown]

15. Disgraceful

He has no right to say how she should be feeling or what she should be saying. Only she knows what she went through.

[platimum]

18. Actually, and I don't read the guy much....

...but to mention Stockholm Syndrome in this context was reasonable, but of course, he worded the thing tactlessly. If she has just gotten out of 3 months of captivity, then she doesn't need to read some glib speculation about her ordeal. If he wants to write about it decently, that's fine--but not just to take potshots.

[The Stranger]

43. He couldn't care less about her mental state, he just wants more war.

If people start talking to one another, there is the danger they may cease violence.

[BootinUp]

46. Bingo.

idea borrowed from an old Star Trek episode: the hate monster is getting hungry, he detects a drop in hate levels.

[LostinVA]

45. Her garb had Nothing to do with Stockholm Syndrome!

She wore it to blend in, to "do as the Romans do." Most female journalist in the ME do this. It gains them access and respect.

What a silly thread this has turned into!

[zbdent]

24. Comical . . . According to J.P.'s "reasoning",

the Gitmo & Abu Ghraib prisoners were "not well-treated" . . . an admission by the Righties that torture's okay unless it's "one of us" . . . (whoops, she actually went to Iraq, unlike some RW pundits . . .)

[newspeak]

50. doesn't it kind of remind you

of the Jessica Lynche treatment? She wouldn't lie and the RW cons started the bad mouthing.

[warrens]

54. She was dressed in semi-Muslim garb when she was kidnapped

What's the nimrod think, she was walking around dressed like Britney. I fucking hate right wing thugs.

[Texaroo]

57. I suspect there will be some Podheretz talk in the coming days

What a lame, sexist asswipe.

What about the fact that she was just released, still "in-country," and probably didn't want either a bunch of controversy OR to stand out?

Since Jill facilitated her own release, Podheretz should STFU. I watched her, and I suspect that she made a careful, grounded statement for good reason. And she is most likely ALIVE because she respects the local customs, unlike the ugly American imperialist that is, obviously, this jerk.

Poddy-mouth owes all women and all hostages an apology.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

58. ne takes after his mommy - midge decter

"We're not in the Middle East to bring sweetness and light to the world. We're there to get something we and our friends in Europe depend on. Namely, oil."
-- on the Warren Olney show, Los Angeles, May 21, 2004

AND his sister is married to elliott abrams.


http://www.nndb.com/people/376/000052220/