For the past twenty-five years, I have lived in America, first as a reluctant transplanted Iranian always looking pastward, and later, as an exile reconciled with the chronic condition that exile always brings -- most notably an arthritic heart. In the first half of my stay, I was astounded by the leanness of the news coverage of Iran which was biblically vast. In the second half, beginning in 1997, I was grieving the bounty -- so skewed, so dilettantish -- that I prayed for the lean years to return. These cycles of ebb and flow resembled the spikes and dips of a feverish fit far more than the evenness that good reporting demands. Thus rendering the coverage of Iran in American media as consistently flawed.
From the dark hole of newslessness of the 1980s and early 1990s emerged a smiling, "reformist cleric" who commanded the headlines. Whereas Iran's love affair with President Khatami which began in 1997 had ended by 1999 when he failed to join the students who had taken to the streets in support of his agenda, that of the American journalists continued well into Khatami's second term. The essence of most of the news coverage of that era was far less about Iran than it was about the observers' lack of familiarity with that country and its people. Over and over again, the stories tended to be self-centered pronouncements about the Iranians' love of all things American or the Iranian urbanites' penchant for all things western. The surprise of finding teenage Iranians swinging their hips to the tunes of Madonna, consuming alcohol, dreaming of fast cars, and hosting secret house parties revealed the unpreparedness with which these reporters had gone about taking on a highly sophisticated nation with an ancient history of coping with dictators.
Khatami's rise, his amiable manners and surprising panache, gave many among the American intelligentsia the perfect opportunity for the kind of introspection into the CIA's sins of 1953 that was long over due. But as it was coming fifty years too late, it served mostly as a necessary exercise in self-absolution and a diplomatic opportunity for rapprochement. But it was hardly the manifestation of the urgent needs of Iran's majority who were not even born when those sins had occurred.
Little was reported in the Khatami years about what the regime wished to keep obscure: The women's struggle for equal rights, the plight of the religious and ethnic minorities, the labor strikes, the arrest and disappearance of scores of Bahai's, the regime's assassination campaign against the opposition around the world, the rampant corruption among the officialdom, or the deep mafia-like way by which several leading clerics were running Iran's economy -- something that is at the heart of the fissures within the leadership today.
This skewed coverage is the reason why American readers were so flummoxed by the results of Iran's 2004 presidential elections and the sudden emergence of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Instead of searching for flaws within, pundits began to blame Iran for being enigmatic. But this enigma, like most others, was only the product of flawed insight. The Bush years did not help. Any multifaceted assessment of Iran that included an account of the regime's mismanagement or mistreatment of its citizens was taunted as an invitation to another military occupation.
Those of us who follow Iran closely detected a direct correlation between lack of reporting on the state of the activists and minorities and the number of executions and detentions. What Iran's rulers may or may not do with the nuclear bomb in the future remains to be seen. But the coverage of Iran's nuclear development cast such a shadow over all other events in Iran that the phantom bomb has already devastated the lives of hundreds of activists who either perished or are languishing in obscurity in prisons. Iran's chief pyromaniac, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, knows well how to ignite the headlines. His proposed Holocaust cartoon exhibit generated thousands of reports about his intentions. But when the exhibit began and its halls went unfrequented, it was barely reported. His arsonous rhetoric against Israel so blinded the attentions in its blaze that no one could see the valiant journalists and intellectuals who were arrested for criticizing him for diverting much needed funds at home to Hamas and Hezballah.
Was it macho adventurism that attracted so many to cover the nuclear issue at the expense of all else? Or was it self-centrism at work once more? Or were they all victims of the misconception that covering the invisible side of Iran was of no value to westerners audiences? Committing to continuously watching the state of human rights in Iran is not simply an exercise in altruism Americans must embrace against their own interests. It is the only way to learn the full spectrum of the behavior of a system which is detrimental to the global peace. It is the only way a sound policy can be forged.
Today, once again, Iran is receiving another bounty of coverage. But this column is to remind all those who are covering Iran now that if they partake in the feast, they must be there for the famine that is sure to follow. Green is not the last color to symbolize the quest of Iranians, and Mousavi, the true winner of the 2009 elections, is merely an incidental figure on the road of the nation's thirty-year struggle for freedom and equal rights.
It is also to remind fellow expatriates that it is not enough to explain to Americans that Ahmadinejad and his band of thugs do not represent Iran and Iranians. They must believe that fact themselves and remember that a nation's dignity does not only stem from the glories of its past, but also from the undaunted way it goes about ridding itself of those who deface that past.
Iran Uprising: Experts Weigh In On What's Happened And What It Means
Iran Uprising: Experts Weigh In On What's Happened And What It Means
Russia was the culprit by ALL reports, you know, just ALL of them. Except for the Russian reports, of course. But that was NOT a media reporting; that was rather to make Russia understand what US (and "all civilized world") were feeilng about it. Was it not ridiculous to see, how people expressed their "righteous indignation" in their blogs, without caring to just think a bit. That their opinion "just happened" to be clone of the mass media presentations, you know.
Of course, later on the truth about that war started to appear here and there... I think, it took some 2-3 WEEKS before it did. I wander if the bloggers felt fooled, he-he.
So, if you know the truth about Iran, I will be very thankful if you take the trouble to write about it. Why waste your time on lamenting the state of the US media? I can say the same about MOST media channels, alas.
It is clear that the some Media’s line still is with keeping the status quo of the whole Islamic Regime in Iran. This is a futile attempt this time and in the coming future Iranian people would Dictate the paste of event in Iran.
Tehran June 2009
The Overthrow of Islamic Republic Regime, is taking place through out Iran.
The way that the Western Media ( BBC, VOA in particular BBC, VOA, Persian service) is giving the information about the situation, is Miss informing and disinformation at best.
The are reporting as if this uprising is just about the so called ''the election result'' !!
Reporters are fully aware that the people of Iran have tactically used this so called election to overthrow the Islamic Republic Regime.
It is clear TO ANYONE SPEAKING Persian that the chants are Death to the Dictator, Down with the Leader, we don’t want religious regime, and so on...Some Medias are trying to show these facts in such way which gives the listener or the viewer the impression that people of Iran want just "Reform" within this theological system. !!!
Nothing is further from the truth. Without going into analysing the so called reform movement, any informed person would know that the people of Iran pretended to back the so called Reformist candidate because he clearly talked about Dismantling the Theological system.
Tehran June 2009
American MSM well for years it has been a dumbing down process . . .controlled by ratings and conservatives and murdoch who has been given far too much control of the air waves . . .
There is no objectivity in the news, no investigative reporting . . . think about the NYTimes and the build up to the illegal invasion of Iraq . . . it is corporate America at its homogenised worst . . .
American journalism for the most part only sees the rest of the world as a reflectiion of itself and to propagandise its own interests and point of view . . . on one hand America is isolationist and on the other has imperialistic tendencies . . . it believes too much in its own myth .. . this was not helped by the fact that with the demise of the Soviet Union it was the only superpower remaining after the Cold War . . . but like so much it was the ugly American that dominated its blinkered foreign policies . . . in the Middle East that it has been the AIPAC and israel .. at home the extreme right has been encouraged to grow and come out of the boon docks . . why to support the neo
why to support the neo con agenda . . . for war war war . . . to benefit the oil companies . . . and erode fundamental democracy . . if cheney could have instituted a dictatorship . . I have no doubt he would have the GOP followed like sheep . . . the world got a glimpse of the underbelly of American democracy in 2000 . . . with Katrina . . in 2004 . . . this isn't helped by the fact that only about 23% of Americans actually have passports . . . that is millions who know nothing about nothing except their own backyard . .
However due to the 1979 revolution there are at least 2-3 million exiled Iranians live abroad. Living in Iran under Shah’s police state and Mullah’s theocracy made people hungry for politics and hopefully by now they have learned the Western Games and ready to play the chess tournment.
On the other hand every country seems to report everything going on here, good, bad or just silly.
Personally, this looks like one political hack against another political hack. I have yet to hear what's so great about Mousavi, except Americans insist on thinking "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's like a certain country that kept saying all their problems would dissapear with Yassir Arafat. Guess what, they found a new boogyman.
Another thing, at least the Iranians know who's really pulling the strings. We only get to pick from two guys, both paid for by...?
It is not "as if" to distract us; it IS to distract us. It's all about distraction and keeping Cheney and his gang out of jail.
This puts into question the nature of 'representational democracy' as opposed to 'real democracy'. Once representatives are in power, then the will of the voters is 'a way down the line' consideration. While there is no ability by the voters to recall a candidate after election, quickly, easily and directly, then we'll forever be imbued with corruption.
Second, how much can I or we, trust any reporting by anyone of a country as iran about which it is hard to be objective and not slanted?
How much can I trust an article by a Westernised, feminist writer from a non Muslim minority sect (with the inevitable angst of her own) to genuinely enlighten me? That is the problem here. Lack of ojectivity. Everyone tries to sell us their point of view. I see millions of people flock to cheer Ahmedinijad as well as his opponent. People are sill crazy about Ayotollah R.Khomeini.
i sincerely would like to learn as to where the Iranians (villagers, men on the street ) stand. I must learn farsi and go to see things for myself!
Every news channel is covering this but the crap that went on during Pakistans elections were glossed over while a very important candidate was assassinated? Seems we pick our outrages strangely.