Check Out Our Podcast!

The Persian Conversion can now be listened to as well as read! You can find our podcast here or on iTunes [search the directory for "Persian Conversion"]. It explores issues that concern Iran through interviews with students from the University of Southern California, Iranian journalist and expatriate Omid Memarian, and USC political science professor and resident Middle East expert Richard Dekmejian. Enjoy!

The Absence of National Debate

In an editorial that appeared in today's New York Times, the proposed military solutions to the problems in Iran are refuted as foolish. The sentence that stood out to me, however, was the prescription that "Congress and the public need to force the kind of serious national debate that never really took place before the American invasion of Iraq".

Is such a debate even possible in our society? With the media so unwilling to address any issue in its context and explore its ramifications, it is difficult for the public to understand what the options are and what is at stake. It could be argued that the media's unwillingness to provide perspective and challenge officials is the reason that no debate occurred prior to the invasion of Iraq.

If the media wants to see a debate occur, it must take initiative in informing and provoking the public.

Prediction

Media coverage on Iran will increase because of American interest and constant changes in the nuclear situation-Iran has now declared it has successfully enriched uranium and Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is going to visit Iran to discuss its nuclear program. And because the media has to do its ‘duty’ of attacking the administration so the public will think that it is independent thus maintaining its credibility. (Bennett Ch. 5)

Furthermore the public is interested because Iran’s act of defiance may cause the administration to use its policy of preemptive action which the administration has left as a viable option against Iran.

What I Learned…

So this is my last post of the semester and I would like to reflect on what I have learned about the media from class as well as from blogging on Iran.

Iran was only covered in the media when American interests were at stake or new developments occurred in the nuclear situation. That does not mean that we should have forgotten about the issue when it was not being covered because other media sources, such as the BBC continued to provide coverage.

The media in the US is constantly looking for stories that attract audiences, which would cause them to buy the newspaper. But allowing the media to set the agenda only causes us to ignore issues that impact us now or will in the future. Not actively seeking out information causes us to be isolated and puts us in harms way. For examples polices towards a country may have future consequences for us but because we never take the time to find out our government’s polices, when that country retaliates we shouldn’t be shocked…it’s our fault for not keeping a check on our government and its policies.

Headlines and Word Choice

While blogging on Iran and the media coverage given to the country and issues concerning it, it has become clear that there is a difference in the way American media and international media cover the stories. American media is more sensationalized and unconcerned with news in the middle east, unless they are making an apocolyptic announcement. The latest headlines concerning Iran are no different.

Iran's president recently announced that they have successfully developed nuclear technology. Though Iran claims the nuclear program is only for civillian energy use, the west fears that they will continue their research and make nuclear weapons. Whether or not Iran does continue down this road, experts say it will be years before they can make a nuclear weapon.

BBC News reported this story with the headline "Iran declares key nuclear advance"
This headline is factual and it does not dramatize the issue. The headline from Fox News is worded a little differently. It reads "Iran has joined 'club of countries' with its nuke technology and enriched uranium"
And the headline on MSNBC reads simply "Nuclear Expansion"
in large ominous print.

While the content of all three articles is similar, the headlines could give a skewed view of world affairs to many who simply skim the headlines.

Beyond the bad

All this talk about Iran's nuclear development and possible war with the US is rather depressing. Not to mention it also sets a very unfavorable frame for the Iranian debate. When discussion Iran's progress, if all one knows is the problems they are having with the west, then any discussion will have a negative bias towards Iran.

Thus I'd like to end my post marathon tonight with a commentary on the arts in Iran. I've always liked to think of a society's ability to contribute to the arts as an indicator towards their level of civilization. Its incredibly difficult to develop a nationwide art program if standard infrastructure is not in place. Thus, I was pleased to see news that Iran was in the process of starting a symphony. The Academy of Art has recently sponsored a recording with the Armenian Philharmonic Orchestra. This is a tremendous step forward in the Iranian artistic community.

I also came across an article where a Iranian artist advocates more criticism of Iranian art by the western world. While this may seem to an odd request, his argument is founded on the notion that artistic criticism is necessary to further artistic development and recognition. Thus more criticism will lead to more artistic undertaking by Iranians and will lead to more recognition of their work.

The role of the media in all of this reminds me of the role local media has on local communities. Newscasts on local stations seem to always depict the worst that is happening in the community, crime and scandal. And rarely highlights the good contributions to the local society. Similarly the media's neglect to depict the good aspects of Iranian society encourage the stereotypes of the average western observer. A shame too, because often times these stories prove to be the most interesting...

Are we going to war? Does it even matter?

In my last post, I made a number of references to potential conflict between the US and Iran. In recent months, more and more stories are being published concerning a possible war between the United States and Iran. The media has been very vocal and critical over the possibility of war. Ghali Hassan of globalreasearch.ca describes American aggression as a multifaceted attempt to downplay failures in Iraq and stunt the Iranian nuclear program. He is extremely critical of the US supposed position, and tries to inspire much skepticism. Although, I do wonder how much of this crisis is real and how much is media driven.

So I tried to look for a source that isn't directly involved in the conflict, an article not written by either an American, nor an Iranian. I also eliminated any British writers because the British also have much interest in the situation. So I found a Chinese article that laid out some official responses to the media's depiction of a possible war. It basically says that the media has totally blown the situation out of proportions, which isn't difficult to agree with. Not much could be gained out of a war right now. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already said he won't back down Iran's nuclear efforts no matter what US or UN officials say. Thus, fighting this war would only force Iran to speed up the development process, almost eliminating any possibility of Iran using the technology responsibly (not at all). Plus, there wouldn't be much support on the home front for such a war. Attacking Iran would also delay the conversion to a democratic state, one of the most prized goals for the region.

Naturally, regardless of the truth, the perception created by the media has already influenced the public outlook and has had a real effect on their lives. Fear of a possible war has already driven oil prices up. This will naturally also spread and reinforce the fear of Iran in the American psyche. Oil is still very important to a automobile dependent America, and Iran is still one of the most important exporters of oil. News that the US is gearing up for war with Iran, and the reality that gas prices are going up because of it, will only lead to Americans blaming Iran for the problems, and not the irresponsible media coverage. Just another setback to the progress of the Iranian transition to western world.

What Does the World Think of Western Media?

I was browsing through the BBC a few moments ago and found a really interesting perspective on Hersh's New Yorker article. The government in Iran, rather than taking this information to heart or even as a warning to prepare for American attacks, has turned around and accused America of psychological warfare through the media. They have suggested that the article is part of a White House orchestrated psychological warfare campaign against Iran's nuclear program.

Earlier in the semester, we spoke about the importance of media as a linkage institution--bringing information from the government to the public. The fact that many Iranians are scorning the media report as a way the White House is trying to use fear tactics is an illustration of how important media can be-- as well as a means of providing information, it can be used as a tool for governmental purposes. It is also an illustration of what the world thinks of Western media-- as the puppet of Western governments.

I think the goal of the class-- seeing the way the media is currently being operated and visualizing the ideal media-- is clearly summarized in this response. The media is obviously not inspiring any faith in its primary purpose, if the overwhelming belief (both nationally and internationally) is that it is the government's lapdog. If it is so powerful that it can induce such a response, how come it does not fulfill its possibilities-- bringing the truth to the public?