VIDEO - Jill Carroll Unsure of Her Freedom During First TV Interview

[dzika]

broadcast on March 31, 2006

VIDEO - Jill Carroll Unsure of Her Freedom During First TV Interview

The Christian Science Monitor reports that Jill Carroll was not aware that the first (and most replayed) video taped interview would be broadcast in Iraq or internationally. In fact Carroll may not even been certain that she was free during the interview.

This video contain several clips. CNN's Nick Robertson opens with a quick report saying that Jill Carroll was not aware that the interview would be broadcast. Next, we have included the complete raw interview footage. Finally, Miles O'Brien interviews the editor of The Christian Science Monitor for some behind-the-scenes information about Carroll's state of mind during her initial release and during that first video interview.

Jill Carroll's kidnappers simply left her at the offices of the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP) in the city of Amariyah. She had not been released to American or Iraqi officials at the time of the first interview.

Carroll was told that the interview would be for 'internal' party use. The IIP owns Baghdad TV so maybe it isn't surprising that they broadcast the interview.

Richard Bergenheim, editor of The Christian Science Monitor, that Jill Carroll's comments in that first video interview may have been constrained by the uncertainty of her freedom. Miles O'Brien interviews Richard Bergenheim on CNN American Morning:

Miles O'Brien: really going out of her way to make a positive statement... tell us a little about the circumstance she was in at that point.

Bergenheim: ... She had been dropped of on the street. Someone pointed and said "go into that building"... She really wasn't sure what was going on and what her circumstance were.

She was told that if she spoke to Americans, entered the Green Zone or anything of that sort that her life would be in danger. I think it was likely that she was still in a careful measured frame of mind -- very careful of what she said.

Miles O'Brien: She wasn't certain she was free at that point?

Bergenheim: I think if I was Jill Carroll, just suddenly dropped of and said "you're free". It would be really hard to adjust quickly to what was going on.

http://www.ameratsu.com/media/vid/cnn/cnn_am_jcaroll_interview_trick_060331a_320x240.flv&width=320&height=240&OrigWidth=320&OrigHeight=240">
http://www.ameratsu.com/media/vid/cnn/cnn_am_jcaroll_interview_trick_060331a_320x240.flv&width=320&height=240&OrigWidth=320&OrigHeight=240">Video in Streaming Flash format...
Video in Windows Media format...

http://veredictum.com/node/157

[medeak]

1. It was my impression she was speaking her own mind n/t

[qanda]

3. What does that mean?

Just asking because I don't understand your post.

[medeak]

4. watched the segment on tv

and she was saying how her captors treat people better than US soldiers...and I felt she meant it.

[Mike Daniels]

5. I have a feeling that Daniel Pearl's /Nick Berg's parents would disagree

with her statement. I also doubt that her deceased translator's family shares her feelings about her captors as well.

She was released because her death would have been a liability to the cause of those who kidnapped her and anyone remotely affiliated with them.

[medeak]

7. What Pakistan have to do with Baghdad?

re Daniel Pearl. Agree re her translator however. Interesting interview tho...hopefully it will be available soon and you can judge for yourself.

edited to say.. I don't understand the need for her translator. She was translating all the questions in interview herself?

[qanda]

6. Thanks.

I didn't see the interview and I appreciate you taking time to explain.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. This may well be true

At the same time, you'd think that Jill Carroll would know a little something about the IIP, and whether she was being held by the IIP in their main offices on behalf of her kidnappers. This sounds like some desperate ideological scrambling to throw doubt on her statements while they desperately try to debrief her.

Here's the real tinfoil: The insurgents kidnap her, for the precise purpose of treating her well, then releasing her. They take her to be something of a straight shooter on Iraqi matters, so they don't see her automatically adjusting her reports to fit the US interests, as many other journalists in a similar situation would do without thinking. She doesn't have to be in on a conspiracy; she merely does what she has been trained to do: tell the story straight. And ta da, you have a minor PR disaster for the corporate media types and administration, because the news can't fail to report that she has been freed (the insurgents knew that a kidnapped American woman, sacred of sacreds, would be news, period, the insurgents not being, as so many assume, benighted ignorants), but along with that must report on her story as she tells it. Hell, if I were an insurgent planner looking at long-term media strategy, I'd love to stumble across an idea like this.

[dzika]

9. You may be right...

I don't trust CNN's reporting but I think the Editor of the Christian Science Monitor was giving accurate information.

There is little doubt that the corporate media will try to make the situation look as bad as possible.

The truth may come when Jill Carroll speaks directly to Americans. If she holds the line on the quality of her treatment then it's going to be difficult to them to use negative spin.

Until then, I'm afraid we are going to hear speculation about Stockholm Syndrome and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from the corporate media.

[zbdent]

8. Think Miles & Berg are trying to

give the freepturds a pass?

"Well, look, she didn't know she was free, so she felt she should say she was treated nicely. Now, I know exactly how she was treated . . . and she had to lie . . ."

Of course, the Propaganda channels will not actually walk up to her and ask HER how she was treated . . . the CSM might have been pressured to play along with the reichies or else . . .