With This Blog, I Wish Thee Dead

David Weigel | April 3, 2006

Liberal bloggers are feeling their oats about the Jill Carroll story; specifically, they're feeling pretty good about not engaging in the "Stockholm Syndrome" theorizing that arose on some conservative blogs. The anti-Carroll commentary ranged from speculative to conspiratorial to downright creepy, and all of it sounded amazingly callous even before the truth of Carroll's story came out. While the crew at ThinkProgress hounds the offenders for apologies, Matt Stoller of MyDD sees right-wingers just being right-wingers.

The Carroll thing is a fairly standard storyline that predates blogs. Right-wingers tend to hate a free media. Right-wingers tend to say creepy and racist things. Right-wingers tend to hate reporters who say that all isn't apple pie in Iraq. This is true on the AM talk radio circuit, at the RNC, in the Oval Office, and on right-wing blogs. I mean the GOP.com blog even has a tag 'good news from Iraq'.

This has NOTHING to do with blogs. Zero. This has to do with a flat-out racist and warmongering right-wing movement that doesn't like a woman whose survival cuts against their narrative.

That might be over the top, but the advent of blogs has started to reveal how many people think like Don Imus.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|4.3.06 @ 10:21AM|#

The carping about Jill Carroll by some of the commentors here at H&R was a little bit sorry, as well.

Seriously, come on.

|4.3.06 @ 10:22AM|#

Eh, she was an anti-war freelancer who was kidnapped, her translator killed, and when she's released the first thing you hear is how nice the kidnappers were. It just seems like one of the downsides of your easy mac, hustle bustle instant news cycle.

Imus Fan|4.3.06 @ 10:23AM|#

Don Imus didn't say anything negative about Jill Carroll. Bernard McGuirk did. This is typical of McGuirk's schtick. He intentionally tosses out inflamatory comments that are typically right wing, but are done more to get a laugh (or a rise) out of people than to act an expression of rational political discourse. I suggest changing your misleading post.

|4.3.06 @ 10:25AM|#

I hereby vote David Weigel as the Reason staffer most likely to join the Democrat Party in the future.

|4.3.06 @ 10:26AM|#

Couldn't agree more about blogging and the "Don Imus" mentality. It seemed like a great thing when it took off, "democracy" and "decentralized free speech" and all that. But my personal experience is that (outside of Reason.com, of course) most bloggers are shallow thinkers, and do not want to engage in rational discourse and debate. It's not as if we have a million Stephen Hawkings or Feynman's out there sharing their deepest isnights.

When EVERYBODY has a microphone, all we get is the Internet equivalent of the millions of idiots in the movie Network shouting puerile phrases out of their windows creating mindless cacophony.

However, I would add that, thanks to blogging, we're probably saving mucho dinero in welfare and disability payments for psychotropic medicines for people with narcissistic disorders. Give them a domain and webhosting account and everyone's happy ....

|4.3.06 @ 10:29AM|#

Why print Matt Stoller's comments? Are they interesting? Insightful? Coherent? Do they deserve any more attention than Imus' producer?

|4.3.06 @ 10:30AM|#

"most bloggers are shallow thinkers, and do not want to engage in rational discourse and debate. It's not as if we have a million Stephen Hawkings or Feynman's out there sharing their deepest isnights."

Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.

|4.3.06 @ 10:34AM|#

The good thing about this cacophony is that it makes for a really nice fact checker.

The bad thing is that it can get carried away pretty easily.

Still, the best cure for dumb speech is more speech.

And I, for one, am not at all surprised that initial reports about a hostage's statements were inaccurate. Until the hostage is safely reunited with friends and family, and certified non-Stockholm by a shrink, I will disregard any allegedly pro-terrorist statements coming from a former hostage.

|4.3.06 @ 10:36AM|#

C'mon, y'all were taken in by her initial interview too. Don't be bitter just because you got suckered. Be a man, admit you were wrong, or the terrorists (literally) will have won.

David Weigel|4.3.06 @ 10:36AM|#

Finkelstein - I grabbed that quote to demonstrate the over-the-topness of the liberal bloggers, who were right about Carroll but are using the opportunity to launch predictable conservative-seeking missiles.

theOneState|4.3.06 @ 10:36AM|#

I think the "creepy" link should go to the Schlussel stuff (instead of the "conspirational" link, which should go to LGF).

I thought I had a strong stomach, but I couldn't take it...

|4.3.06 @ 10:46AM|#

I will disregard any allegedly pro-terrorist statements coming from a former hostage.

Which seems very sensible. I'm afraid I don't quite understand the purpose of this post -- some people didn't believe her (apparently false) first statements? Ipso facto, what?

Maybe this is just too 'inside blogosphere' for me to follow, at least on the weekend.

|4.3.06 @ 10:49AM|#

Mozz, Could you give me a link showing how she was an "anti-war" freelancer? Thanks.

|4.3.06 @ 10:51AM|#

Nothin' better than blogging about blogs, except now I'm blogging about that.

|4.3.06 @ 10:54AM|#

The key question, for me, taking into consideration the political, economical and social factors involved is:

Is she hot?

I haven't had a chance to see her without the head scarf.

Can someone clarify?

Because, if she's hot, then I'll believe anything she says.

|4.3.06 @ 10:58AM|#

It's typical of blogs and of the traditional media these days to fire off opinions and to establish some sort of working "theme" for any news item the instant it goes public. Being first with something is more important than knowing anything at all about what actually happened. Which is why opinions about Carroll's statements made the very same day of her release come across as rather silly. Why anyone wants to read, hear about, or watch opinions made in a vacuum is beyond me.

|4.3.06 @ 11:02AM|#

This kind of reminds me of what happened to Shakleton and his men after they came back from their harrowing ordeal. During their absence WWI had started and when they got back they were treated as shirkers by some members of the British public.

|4.3.06 @ 11:06AM|#

Shakleton deserved it!

Bloody draft dodger. Thinks he can bugger off in his boat and dick around Antartica for a few months while the rest of us get to sit in trences and develop gangreen...

|4.3.06 @ 11:07AM|#

And I, for one, am not at all surprised that initial reports about a hostage's statements were inaccurate. Until the hostage is safely reunited with friends and family, and certified non-Stockholm by a shrink, I will disregard any allegedly pro-terrorist statements coming from a former hostage.

You should hear some of the nutzo things Elizabeth Smart said when she first got found.

|4.3.06 @ 11:09AM|#

This is the same crowd that insists that there's all this good news in Iraq that isn't being reported. Unlike these cringing cheetos-stained pantloads she actually went there and almost had her head sawed off. If I had a few spare million sitting around I'd buy all these guys a one-way ticket to Iraq so they can see all the good news first hand.

|4.3.06 @ 11:10AM|#

Mark,

:)

|4.3.06 @ 11:12AM|#

Brian-

Good point! Is she supposed to report good news or bad news? Could somebody straighten this out for us?

Timothy|4.3.06 @ 11:41AM|#

It's interesting to me when the hard-right's hatred of A-rabs comes up against their hatred of media: reporter says she wasn't threatened by the same folks the LGFers want to make sure we stay nice and afraid of, she must be a terrorist sympathizer! Not once does it occur to them that, perhaps, the violent sociopaths we're supposed to be afraid of so we don't notice our liberty going out the window held a gun to her head and made her say it. Partisans just make me sad.

|4.3.06 @ 11:52AM|#

I hereby vote David Weigel as the Reason staffer most likely to join the Democrat Party in the future.

Ok, can we please refer to them as the "Democratic Party" and not "Democrat Party"? Wasn't it Rush Limbaugh who started up that little trick to remove "democratic" from the name of the party he despises? Juvenile to say the least.

|4.3.06 @ 11:54AM|#

Am I missing something? I don't really read right wing blogs, but I clicked on the MyDD link. Where's the racism? MyDD quotes wingers talking about Stockholm Synderome, but I don't see any quotes that are racist.

What's up?

I think it's terribly racist that she's blaming the "backlash" against her previous statements on Arabs.

"Oh, you didn't like what I said? I'm sorry... um... they made me say it!"

Whatever, hon. Next time, try to get your story straight before you go all Ben Domenech on us and plagiarize statements written by other people and call them your own words!

|4.3.06 @ 12:00PM|#

"Ok, can we please refer to them as the 'Democratic Party' and not 'Democrat Party'?"

Or we could start refering to the "Republic Party".

|4.3.06 @ 12:03PM|#

SR: or, we could simply eliminate all the hassle, and just call them both by the same name: The Statist Party.

|4.3.06 @ 12:08PM|#

"Ok, can we please refer to them as the 'Democratic Party' and not 'Democrat Party'?"

Or we could start refering to the "Republic Party".

Comment by: SR at April 3, 2006 12:00 PM

/shrug

Well I don't much care either way. I'll just start referring to them as Rep and Dem in the future.

|4.3.06 @ 12:22PM|#

SR: or, we could simply eliminate all the hassle, and just call them both by the same name: The Statist Party.

I find that "those motherfuckers" works pretty nicely too.

|4.3.06 @ 12:23PM|#

"SR: or, we could simply eliminate all the hassle, and just call them both by the same name: The Statist Party. "

Works for me. At this point in time, which party seems more Republican and more Democratic? It seems like Republicans who are constantly bemoaning our renegade judiciary trampling the will of the people.

|4.3.06 @ 12:26PM|#

My grandmother is a dittohead, and always, always calls them the "Democrat Party", so every time I hear that term used it makes me want to kill. I also hear a lot about the "mainstream media".

|4.3.06 @ 12:52PM|#

The Corner link seems like a non-sequitor. The observation was that her statements made no sense.

Where are the links to the lefty blogs that took them as truth?

|4.3.06 @ 1:27PM|#

Is anyone finally going to say "Just leave the woman alone." and think about what they would have feeled, said and done if captured by those Islamic thugs?
Sheeesh.
She wasn't threatened, she said. Sure. Somebody really believes that?

Really sad that absolutely everything degenerates into partisan bickering and common decency is absent.

Jesse Walker|4.3.06 @ 1:46PM|#

Wasn't it Rush Limbaugh who started up that little trick to remove "democratic" from the name of the party he despises?

The "Democrat Party" tick goes back decades before Limbaugh.

Brainster|4.3.06 @ 2:53PM|#

"That might be over the top..."

Understatement of the year nominee!

wingnutx|4.3.06 @ 3:16PM|#

She said what she had to in order to survive. I don't blame her. Now that she's safe, she feels secure enough to give her actual views. This should suprise no one.

Yaron|4.3.06 @ 3:56PM|#

I mean the GOP.com blog even has a tag 'good news from Iraq'.

Why, of all the... those racists! Thank you, MyDD, for laying out the issues in such stark black and white. Yes, this is the best possible evidence for right-wing ignorane. In fact, no other evidence needed.

Greg, am I understanding this right - your grandmother's words make you want to kill?

Yaron|4.3.06 @ 3:58PM|#

Oops, ignorance.

|4.3.06 @ 4:44PM|#

Greg, am I understanding this right - your grandmother's words make you want to kill?

Yes, I literally want to end the lives of others when I hear those words.

|4.3.06 @ 4:48PM|#

|4.3.06 @ 5:01PM|#

Re: the original interview -

Unless I read the linked article wrong, it looks like the original interview in which she says she was treated well was conducted by people in the office of the Islamist party that the kidnappers dropped her off at. There was some speculation that this party may have had something to do with it, so it's hardly surprising that she would say nice things about the kidnappers to avoid any potential trouble.

Yaron|4.3.06 @ 5:05PM|#

Well, honesty is always good. No, seriously, your original phrasing was odd because it made it seem like it was specifically the fact that your grandmother said it that made you turn against it.

|4.3.06 @ 5:25PM|#

The LGF crowd was *not* arguing "Stockholm Syndrome". That implies that the hostage became temporarily and irrationally sympathetic to her captors' point-of-view during the period of captivity.

Most LGFers accused Carroll of being pro-jihadi before, during and after her captivity. Her mind wasn't warped; instead, she truly believed the anti-American diatribe. Some accused Carroll of being a willing collaborator in a staged kidnapping.

The front page of LGF is a great resource, but most of the regular commentators are vile cretins.

wingnutx|4.3.06 @ 5:55PM|#

LGF is decent as a news-aggregator.

Not as good as Fark, but then what is?

|4.3.06 @ 7:52PM|#

The blogs probably did say some bad things about Carrol, I don't know I didn't read them. What struck me about the post was "Right-wingers tend to hate a free media." WTF? Yeah, liberals love free media, I guess that is why they want to use the FEC to regulate blogs in the name of campaign finance reform and want to legislate talk radio out of exitecne by codifying the fairness doctrine. Give me a break.

|4.4.06 @ 12:13AM|#

Nobody but libertarians like free media except when it's their free media.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements