Fox News (TV only–I couldn’t find anything on their web site) has picked up the story, reported by the NY Post yesterday, documented by MEMRI, and widely discussed throughout the blogosphere that Moqtada al Sadr is receiving substantial material support from Iran. The New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, and CBS apparently don’t consider this news.
In an interview on Fox News this morning Major General Raymond Odierno commander of the 4th Infantry Division, struggling to be as diplomatic as possible, characterized the coverage of Iraq by the media as “exaggerated”. “When we were in Tikrit when a single mortar round was fired, it was reported as an artillery barrage”, General Odierno went on to say.
There are a number of different ways in which journalists can slant news coverage. Most attention is focused on the choice of language e.g. characterizing liberal Democrats as, well, “liberal” while characterizing conservative Republicans as “extreme right-wing Republicans”, etc. But a significantly more important device that can be used by editors to slant the news is what stories are selected for publication.
ABC News, for example, in their human-interest-only approach to coverage of the War on Terror and the war in Iraq concentrates on funerals of servicemen, grieving families, and the problems faced by families when military spouses are kept on long overseas deployments. This morning’s coverage was the weeping, praying family of Thomas Cahill, the contractor apparently kidnapped by Iraqi insurgents.
I haven’t seen comparable coverage by ABC of the effect on Iraqi families of Saddam Hussein’s mass murders or students in Iran beaten, imprisoned, or murdered by the mullahs in Iran.
Is this racist, nationalist, missing the story, or something else entirely?
This is not slanting or spinning the news. This is working hand-in-hand with the enemy to demoralize the nation. Stop asking when the media is going to report positive developments in Iraq or negative events in Iran? They’re not going to because it might demoralize their allies.
Of course Big News isn’t going to report this. If this development was on the front page, people here would be getting angry and demanding action against the mullahs. Can’t have that now, can we?
Iran’s destabilization strategy is getting little attention because it doesn’t fit THE STORY, how the Iraqis hate us, how they wish Saddam was back, and what a poor job the administration did, etc etc.
Well, to put a finer point on it:
It doesn’t get picked up in major media outlets because it goes against the default hypothesis as to the root cause of all of our troubles in the Middle East. Most people in the media, and especially the international media, imagine that the United States is an imperialist oppressive power and that terrorism is just a reaction to that. They tend to force every struggle against the US into that mold, and it causes those in the media (a) to assume that the best way to fight terrorism is to remove pressure from the terrorists by forcing unilateral retreat of the US, (b) to romanticize the insurgents while glossing over their own real predilections towards oppression, and (c) to ignore the special stabilizing role that the US has to play by default in international affairs. Furthermore, in the Western left itself this worldview is often colored by Marxist economic theory in which the US, because of its dominant role, is identified as an economic exploiter as well.
I think that the reason the media is “ignoring” Iran’s involvement in Iraq is just because they haven’t figured out yet how to square that involvement with their received worldview. The best explanation, a power grab on the part of a corrupt and oppressive mullarchy in Iran, doesn’t compute for them. In the weeks ahead, look for the media elite to “discover” Iranian involvement in Iraq and to push the idea that this involvement is “caused by” American aggression in the diplomatic arena, perhaps over nuke programs, and interview calls for relieving diplomatic tensions with Iran (unilaterally) to induce them to leave Iraq alone.
Though “Bleeding Heart Conservatives” one sentence analysis was essentially right, I do think it misses the point that the media and the left do have an internally consistent, if simplistic and childish, worldview about the roots of terror. They need to be educated that not every conflict is best viewed through the lenses of Marxist struggle.
Given the corporate media’s complete surrender of objectivity during its fevered drum beating for the Iraq war, it is simply laughable now to call the corporate media “liberal.” The profit motive would incent them to push the war, since more eyeballs could be expected to view their coverage of the crisis and the attendant ads for laxatives.
The writer presumes that “keeping secret” an alleged Iranian connection to Sadr is somehow hurting the right wing cause, when the impossibility of the Iraq occupation, and the tenuous hold on power by the US puppet regime in Afghanistan, reveal that the US simply doesn’t have the resources to invade and occupy yet one more nation.
Perhaps the right should see this is a propaganda victory, rather than a defeat, because portrayal of Sadr as a mere “thug” simplifies (at least rhetorically) the problem of defeating him. If his support were linked to Iran, then Bush were forced to admit that we simply didn’t have the resources to engage in the project of toppling yet another regime, that would put the lie to the neo-con fantasy of infinite American dominion over the earth.
The right hasn’t bothered to contemplate the elementary fact that “terrorists” are, by definition, an end-around run past our monumental military force. The impossibility of defeating terrorism through tanks and planes style military operations has only been reinforced by the Iraq debacle (Madrid bombing). Where once there were no suicide bombers, now they are active. Where once a regime kept tight reigns on citizens, now militias rule the chaotic streets in defiance of Iraqi police. The Iraq debacle only represents an extremely costly ($100billion/year) bit of soul searching on the part of the US that has nothing to do with defeating trans-national terror groups. It had little to do even with Iraq, but rather it was all US navel gazing on defining our “uni-polar” identity. If massive aircraft carriers or stealth bombers were really a deathblow to terrorism, we would have eradicated the practice long ago.
We should face the fact that terrorism itself isn’t really new. Even our own ancestors engaged in violating the military code of conduct of the 18th Century, when these codes of honor were much more strictly abided by. WWI was sparked by a “terrorist” assasination. Middle class Russians funded anti-Czarist “terrorists” in the 19th Century. The problem isn’t new, but conservative can’t seem to stomach the dread of accepting the fact that no tank, plane or submarine, no matter how expensive, can defeat Al Quaeda, and especially the entire notion of “terrorism.”
Conservatives sure are persecuted. Everybody’s out to get them. Let’s think about this. If George Bush wanted Iran on the front pages, he could put it there tomorrow. Maybe its not there because he doesn’t want it there. Take it up with him. Oh no, you say. Can’t cast aspersions on our leader. Must find scapegoat.
If senior people in the administration or military made a point about Iranian involvement, it would get on the news.
To Kingelvis,
“The right hasn’t bothered to contemplate the elementary fact that “terrorists” are, by definition, an end-around run past our monumental military force.” Are you kidding? The point of defeating the regimes of the Taliban and Saddam and others who may have to be dealt with is to deprive terrorists of state sponsorship. You don’t quote any conservative saying the things you ascribe to them because there is no such accurate quote in all the world. Any educated person understands that terrorism will never be completely wiped out–by any method. But without state sponsors, terrorists will have a much tougher time recruiting membership, gathering resources and perpetrating atrocities. Then a euro-style police action strategy will be much more effective.
Point #2: Corporate ownership of a news outlet does not preclude a left-of-center bias in that organization. A newspaper or TV news channel is run by individuals who are not only loath to be told how they should think, the vast majority vote Democratic or more leftward (80-90% in most surveys). Business managers care about two things only: Ad revenue doillars ande how much is spent to make the product that attracts them. The NY Times is huge corporation, maybe you can explain to me how conservative corporate culture is infecting that paper’s foreign coverage. But I won’t hold my breath
William (7:28pm), Kevin (7:32pm):
You’re probably right that Bush or his high officials could put Iran’s involvement in Iraq on the front page. Maybe we’ll find out at tonight’s (Tuesday’s) press conference. Maybe such reports will be without “sneer quotes” or weaselly qualifiers. Maybe.
Anyway, this critique doesn’t address Dave Schuler’s point, expanded on by Buzz (6:18pm). On the whole, the media are doing what they think is right, based on their world view. It’s a pity that it’s so dogmatic and stereotypical. See The Note’s famous note for an insider’s characterization (scroll down):
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_Feb1004.html
And then there’s the implication that the mainstream press’ inability to follow an important story without Presidential guidance is a good thing? Not in this moderate’s opinion.
Re: Kingelvis comment on April 13: Okay, as you’ve suggested I’ve given it some thought and faced the fact that terrorism isn’t really new. Perhaps it’s the U.S.’s fault it even exists! Now what? Negotiate? “Please Mister Terrorist, don’t hurt us. We’ll pay you and give you stuff!” ooops, no, that would make us victims of extortion. How about, “Mister Terrorist, how ’bout you be nice boys and stop hurting people?” Hmm, no, that wouldn’t work – that’s like asking the class bully to stop teasing because it ‘hurts my feelings’, the exact reason why he does it in the first place. How about “Let’s discuss this rationally, Mister Terror.” Well, now that I think about it, there’s no rationality in blowing oneself, or one’s own teenage children, to bits, is there? How can you reason with anyone who can do that? There’s always the Ignore Them Method, but…oh dear, there go the Twin Towers!
Terrorism of late stems from the belief that the doer will arrive in eternal paradise for their actions. Kingelvis, if you can find a nouveau way to end terrorism, go to it, man! I’m right behind you.
Maybe, the US would like the Iranians to try and sort out their little nuclear problem without too much undue pressure from everyone else. There is no doubt that Iran is fomenting destabilization. It was mentioned BEFORE the conflict and direct warnings to Tehran to “stay out” were issued. Nonetheless, the Iranians do not want to see a strong regional Iraq (they are still pretty peeved about having their population gassed and their city bombarded by SCUDs).