Who to Believe?

If you had any doubt about the war on terror being heavily media-driven you need only review the last few days of reporting on Jill Carroll’s release. There she is, suitably attired in head scarf and swaddling clothes covering all possibly sinful exposure of bare female flesh. She smiles and laughs, describing the tiny room in which she was held captive and the one time she got to see a newspaper and television. Her captors were kind and cared for her while they resisted the evil invaders. She was never harmed and simply was being used to pressure the Americans to do what was right.

My first reaction was a flashback to “Stockholm Syndrome.” That was the phenomenon which was first recognized during a hostage taking in the Swedish capitol in 1973. After just five days in captivity the hostages sympathized with their captors rather than hating them. The psychological pressure of total dependence upon the thugs caused an emotional attachment. The syndrome was later applied to the Patty Hearst episode in which the heiress, first kidnapped for ransom by the Symbionese Liberation Army, later joins them in a bank robbery armed with an assault weapon. That’s pretty deep sympathizing in my book.

So, my impression was that Jill was traumatized by the experience and so grateful at her release that she was trying to sugarcoat the experience. Either that or she was agenda driven like the peace activists who were released last week. Her ideology was so deeply ingrained that she could overlook the evil of her oppressors. Did she forget the circumstances of her apprehension? Friendly Captors Kill Interpreter

I remembered early appearances in which she did the typical, almost clichéd video of pleading for compliance with the demands of her captors. There she was, huddled in front of the requisite three masked terrorists with their prop AK-47s and rocket launcher, begging for her life. They didn’t seem quite so kind and caring to me.

Now, we’ve got this: Christian Science Monitor Reports Forced Video

So, it seems that what we saw on the nightly news was really the propaganda message of the bad guys, not really a post-release expression of appreciation for the room and board of the past three months. It was coerced.

But, just when I think I understand what is going on, I encounter this one: Bash Bush--Take Two and Rolling Wow, they had power problems in the studio and had to start over to make the show properly professional quality. What a great little trooper our Jill is! She manages to keep the smile and perky delivery coherent during the second take of the message.

What’s the meaning of all of this? I’m pretty sure I know at least part of what happened. I’m very confident that the video makers are bad guys. I’ve got no doubts that they are brutal and willing to kill women, children, their neighbors and anyone they need to make their point.

But, I’m left with doubts about the whole episode. Could this have been a planned scenario? Was Jill a party to the thing from the start? Am I being too paranoid and cynical when I think that this might be a sure ticket to a Pulitzer and/or a multi-million dollar book contract? Maybe the interpreter wasn’t let in on the plot and resisted too aggressively becoming collateral damage? Maybe the final outcome on main-stream-media reportage in which the first image of Joyous Jill extolling her captors is the one that persists, is what was wanted all along.

I wish I knew the truth.