Okay, this is just nuts.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, after journalist Jill Carroll was released late last week Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz wrongheadedly questioned her first interview, which was taped by Iraqis before she was handed over to U.S. forces, and lent credence to the idea that she was too sympathetic to Arab causes, thereby making her somehow anti-American.
So Kurtz must've felt pretty damn foolish after Carroll released her official statement and explained the conditions behind her comments.
And here's how the esteemed journalist and television personality addressed his role in the whole "Taliban Jill" conflagration Monday in his Media Notes blog on the Washington Post's website:
"Jill Carroll is now back in Boston. (Here's the Christian Science Monitor piece on her return.) Since I was among a number of journalists expressing puzzlement about her videotaped interview in an Islamic party office in Baghdad after her release, I was glad to see the statement she released over the weekend. I just wish it had been in front of a camera, since it's hard for a written statement to catch up with a piece of video that's been endlessly replayed."
Now let me get this straight, because Kurtz couldn't wait until a fellow journalist was in American hands before questioning her motives, Jill Carroll was supposed to immediately rush to a television camera and tape an on-air statement to help clear his warped mind? Don't you think she might've had more pressing things to do, like speaking to family and friends and getting some real rest for the first time in 3 months?
Kurtz clearly is trying to weasel an excuse for his sick insinuations by shooting the messenger, a rather odd stance for a reporter. And his reasoning is so ridiculous it's laughable. How can the Post allow this guy to write crap like that?
I've e-mailed the paper's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, questioning the logic of Kurtz's conclusions. I'd suggest that everyone who agrees does the same.