You know all this coverage of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University?
Well, guess what -- it's all a bunch of baloney.
While everyone from CNN to The New York Times gets caught up in the politics of Ahmadinejad's remarks, the real story behind the podium is how much this event -- wait, pseudo-event -- is a victory for both the Columbia University and Iranian public relations teams.
That's right: Columbia and Iran 1, U.S. Media Sources 0.
While the press debate in newsprint and over the airwaves whether homosexuals exist in Iran and the existence of the Holocaust, the real story is how Ahmadinejad's visit to the Ivy League school is a non-event to most people and, in the words of the late Daniel J. Boorstin, a pseudo-event to the press covering it.
According to Boorstin's definition in his highly-regarded 1961 book, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-events in America, the Bollinger-Ahmadinejad prizefight met all four requirements of a fluffed-up circus of hot air, er, I mean a pseudo-event:
1) The event is not spontaneous but instead a planned event;
2) It is planted primarily for the media to report on it;
3) The reality of the situation (academic discourse?) is ambiguous;
4) It is intended to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
By this measure, our beloved news outlets shouldn't have reported on this story at all. Do I even need to ask who reported on the presidents of Turkmenistan, Chile and Malawi who also spoke that day? No, probably not, because Geraldo Rivera was too busy asking people who were locked out of the university's campus to shove their protest signs in the camera lens.
In just once piece of evidence of this truth, Bollinger's heated introduction to Ahmadinejad was far more extensive and planned than his introduction for the other three aforementioned foreign heads of state. You can agree with him or not on his take on "academic discourse," but there's no denying that his day's efforts got him leading stories on all the major national and regional news outlets all day.
So who really wins in this scenario? Certainly not the protestors, journalists or average Joe America. But investors in Iran and Columbia trustees? Start rejoicing. That's coverage that money can't buy.
Follow Andrew J. Nusca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/editorialiste
Who's to say what the world would look like if Iran was able to export their brand of Islamic non-tolerance around the world.
But on one point "outnow" is correct.
The coup d'etat that CIA engineered that brought Shah Pehlevi to Iran was a stupid, stupid move.
The world is still paying the price for that move.
I used to attend the UCLA financial forecast where people would sit down and discuss issues.
This event is all about religious zealots and weird views about homosexuality.
In 1953 there was a secular democracy in Iran. The CIA overthrew this government as a "favor" to the British. We helped install the infamous Shah of Iran who was a brutal dictator until 1979 when the Revolution installed the present regime. We supported Saddam Hussein's regime for eight years in a war against Iran, and, we supported Iran with missiles to use against Iraq. Millions died.
Who's crazy here? Ahmadinejad has some points. The U.S. was inciting these wars to divide and conquer to get the oil. The religious issues are a cover for the real reasons for the U.S. even being involved - that is what we should be talking about.
I'm not saying that a panel discussion cannot be a good thing at a university. I think you are assuming that this was actual dialog, and that Ahmadinejad's responses weren't at all attached to previously established talking points. Unless we're lucky enough to get a morsel of unscripted glory -- say, that comment on homosexuals -- everything else was prepared for, just like any politician. Sure, Ahmadinejad didn't know what questions he was going to answer, but I guarantee you that he anticipated talking about women's rights, the Holocaust and nuclear arms.
You're also assuming that the press aren't messengers that can distort -- if anyone was watching Fox 5's coverage yesterday, you'd know that "fair and balanced" wasn't happening there either (as per usual).
You say this dialog sparked much discussion -- you're right, but it's much more in the vain of whether Ahmadinejad should be burned at the stake or merely bombed into oblivion. No one's discussing the finer points of foreign policy, because none of that was brought up. While I don't agree with his stance, I find that he was quickly pigeonholed as "evil" (to draw from a New York tabloid headline) before words came out of his mouth. To think that people are having enlightened discussion about Iran and Ahmadinejad -- who shares his power over Iran, yet many people don't know that -- is foolish and presumptuous.
You don't have to tell me how things were at Columbia -- I was there. I'm a graduate student. My point is that this was a PR victory under the title of "academic forum." If it wasn't, why did Bollinger treat Ahmadinejad differently than the equally-as-crazy president of Turkmenistan?
All Americans learned is that we now have a face for Iran -- the devil's. There are no shades of gray, no complexities.
As for Columbia, it's a benefit in the long-term, regarding exposure. Remember, the people who complain about "ripping up their diplomas in disgust" and "not donating another cent" weren't donating anyway.
But i do have a small gripe with this line: "All Americans learned is that we now have a face for Iran -- the devil's". I, personally, don't think, in the long run, people will see it like that. Clearly, if the Israel and Christians United for Israel lobbies had their way, he would be burned at the stake. But these people are the extreme. I don't think the public, the mainstream, is going to look at this guy as evil. He came to our country, in a hostile(yet seemingly safe) environment and spoke. Whether or not it was a sort of prepared propaganda or improvisation doesn't really matter.
Putting a face to the guy isn't always enough, but having him here in our institutions gives him a sort of friendly demeanor, or at least a more human one. This, in turn, will lead to a much better representation of the man than video clips of him in front of Iranian Revolutionary Guards or other political rallies in Iran.
Peace is more important than anything else here, and this step taken by Columbia could have been a small step in that direction. No one here is saying Ahmadinejad is an angel, but whats important is that we see the man and find some sort of similarity with him and his country. We have shared causes with Iran and we need to realize them and run with them, ironing out differences later.
You also questioned why Bollinger treated Turkmenistan's president differently. Two reasons: 1: No one is beating the war drum on Turkmenistan and 2: the crap Bollinger got for allowing him here clearly affected his speech as he had to appeal to the protesters.
Thanks for your response.
No argument about the press - but what I was reaching for was the fact that the entire panel can be viewed without any press interceding, as it were. I agree that the press often is more interested in shaping or making news than reporting it. Largely because their marketing folks have successfully transformed the traditional news business into a profitable propaganda machine. In both print and broadcast the cupboard is filled with commentary.
On the other hand, my experience about the discussions has been different than yours and although I'm incredibly optimistic about my point - fairness in mind- I will have to appeal to your interest in the truth to wait for the message beyond the noise - let's say a week.
I still though maintain, that at this point, this is a landmark. It represented the closest thing we have to an actual dialog and will inspire a lot more discourse. There's is no argument about the posturing and collateral benefits to a few or the exaggerated indignation of certain hypertensive alumni lending to the drama. My opinion is that Bollinger's speech was crafted as an omnibus insurance statement hoping to appease detractors. But nonetheless, I feel strongly that this dialog opens the door to more dialog that is more effective than our absent Secretary of State and the feckless administration that appointed her.
And likewise - you don't have to tell me about Iranians - because not only have I been to Columbia - I've spent much time in Iran. And any event that will put eyes noses and faces on the people of Iran - including its pusillanimous president - will be helpful to humanity. We have had entire countries reduced to slogans on bumper stickers, and healthy dialog even if only slightly better is still progress in gaining control of our runaway government.
It showed a couple things very clearly.
1) Arrogant, petty and idiotic insults to a head of state by Columbia President Lee Bollinger. After all he had to tow the IPAC line by being a complete jerk. It is SO imbarassing for the US and the university to show such spoiled brat immaturity.
2) Ahmadinejad completely holding his own in a hostile country in front of a largely hostile audience. Talking about guts...
Imagine the Bush troglodyte facing such audience in Iran. He cannot even appear in front of US audiences without a script.
3) It shows the neocon propaganda working like a charm on dumbed down population in the same way Husein (Noriega) was demonized before the illegal occupation. Iran has not touched anyone in hunderds of years while the US is all over the place like malignant cancer but Iran is "axis of evil", "terrorist" "petty dicratorship"...blah, blah....
It was actually astonishing to hear Bollinger criticising Iran executions while the US has some of the largest number of executions and definitely the largest prison gulag of the western world!
Here you can find the videos and interviews.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
This type of actual dialog inspired many conversations. Some, directly related to this underlying story, encourage more Americans to take a vested interest in the activities of their government beyond their vote.
One thing is for sure - there is a piqued interest in finding out more about Iran by many that I interacted with over the last day - rather than swallowing the fish that the WH and its army of neo-con propagandists toss us as though we were dolphins at the zoo. It seems to me that a real conversations are beginning to happen because an actual dialog took place.
Isn't it more meaningful to make our decisions about Iran's leader based on an actual dialog rather than a potentially distorted message based on the various messengers?? So who cares if it confirmed his apparent dementia, at least we proceed with knowledge instead unattributed opinions. Put faces on the people that this administration is egging us to go kill.
It seems to me that you entirely dismissed the great benefit that we get from this panel. First, we hear from the horse's mouth - perhaps the other end - and we (American people) force and end to the current administrations boycott of diplomacy. Countries don't need diplomats when everyone agrees - its when we are in opposition that diplomacy counts.
So what? The University gets a lift ... Bollinger has a CD and pics for his den and mausoleum - and the students got a chance to say - go to hell Mr. A. At least no one was checked at the door for their political party affiliation as they when our president gives a speech. There was no neo-con goon squad at Columbia.
students studying ACTUAL science instead of
political science, that way our country might
one day truly become energy-independent,
and people in countries like Iran can peddle
their B.S. elsewhere...
This event, despite what most say, was good for everyone involved except maybe the Bush administration. This is not a bad event for the US media, in terms of covering this to the extent they did. Iran is an important issue right now and the only way to get these sorts of topics thrusted into the mainstream is for things like this to happen. We don't want war with Iran and they don't want war with us. Its events exactly like these that COULD lead to the stoppage of such events and beginnings to diplomatic discussions and forums.
This derisive laughter will probably follow Ahmadinejad to his grave.
My prediction: the mullahs will get him out of public limelight within months.
I'm sure lots of red-blooded Americans get a little thrill out of imagining they are surrounded by enemies like the noble white troopers in a log fort when them Injuns are a-coming, knowing, like the troopers, that them bows and arrows ain't jack-shit compared to a few hundred repeating rifles. And Iran's mighty army is just so much target practice for us now, which is when war is fun. I mean what's not to like? The good guys kill everybody and the only injury reported by our side is sore trigger fingers. After all, they asked for it. They got in our way.
an old but provocative source doc
http://www.alternet.org/story/12525/
One man's baloney is another man's ....?