Geoff Young on Mainstream Bias on Iran by White House
olks,
For the past 8 months or more I've been concerned about the corporate media's coverage of Iran. I think it mirrors their irresponsible coverage of Iraq during the buildup to the war. After seeing the Sunday Herald-Leader, I couldn't avoid calling up Managing Editor Tom Eblen about it. He called back Thursday and we discussed the issue by phone.
He asked me to write up my points in a concise way, and said he would send it on to various wire service people he knows. Apparently he is an officer in an association of wire service professionals. Here is what I sent him. I urge you to send similar messages to other media corporations.
Serious Concerns about Mainstream Media Coverage of Iran – April 20, 2006
Just as the idea of a threat from Saddam Hussein was consciously hyped by the Bush administration in 2002 and early 2003, the idea of Iran as an existential threat to the US is being hyped today. Coverage of the Iran nuclear issue over the past 6-8 months has had an impact: approximately half of the US population now fears Iranian nuclear weapons. The mainstream media (MSM) has contributed to this climate of fear by producing a stream of articles written from within the administration’s frame – Iran is a Threat to Us – and leaving out the critically important context of international law.
Key facts are being omitted from almost all MSM articles and reports:
1) Under the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the legal right to enrich uranium for nuclear power plants.
2) Israel has never signed the NPT and is widely believed to possess at least 200 advanced nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them onto Iran’s cities.
3) The US and other major nuclear powers have consistently ignored the provisions of the NPT that require the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. The Pentagon is even working to develop a new generation of smaller, “more usable,” mini-nukes and “bunker-busters,” an advance in the arms race that contradicts the spirit of Article VI of the NPT.
4) The US is taking hostile actions against Iran’s government. Congress has appropriated millions of dollars to “promote democracy” in Iran, and the Guardian Unlimited reports that US special forces have been operating in Iran to select sites for future air strikes and help armed opposition groups
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1750678,00.html (4/10/06).
How would Americans feel about similar actions being taken by a hostile foreign government on our soil? We would surely consider it an act of war.
5) If Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, which has not been proven, it is probably for the purpose of deterring an attack by Israel or the US. Iran is aware of the different policies the US has taken toward Iraq as compared to North Korea.
6) The current US administration has a proven track record of exaggerating threats and using fear in order to justify aggressive war. Has the MSM learned nothing from the Iraq experience?
7) An attack by the US and/or Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities would constitute the war crime of international aggression (unless the UN Security Council had first authorized an attack, which is almost inconceivable given the position of Russia and China).
8) Such an attack could lead to a much wider and longer war in the Middle East, and might even trigger a third world war between the US and much of the Muslim world.
A typical example of the right-wing frame appeared in the Lexington Herald-Leader on Sunday, April 16, pages A3 and A4. A full-page article by Andrew Maykuth of the Knight-Ridder News Service was titled,
"Portentous Power Play: Tehran’s insistence on enriching uranium could
destabilize a volatile region, damage energy markets and bring nuclear
weapons to an Islamic theocracy."
We see a map showing the range of Iranian missiles that, if fitted with hypothetical nuclear weapons that do not now exist, could "put targets in the Middle East and Asia – and American troops in the region – at risk."
We are not shown a map of US military facilities that could threaten the security of Iran, even though it was the US, not Iran, that invaded a neighboring country (Iraq) in 2003 in an unprovoked act of aggression, has troops fighting in another neighboring country, Afghanistan, ensures that no serious pressure will be exerted against Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, and just agreed to accept the legitimacy of India’s nuclear weapons. We also see the same kind of scary satellite photos of Iranian buildings that Colin Powell trotted out at the UN during the long campaign of deception designed to justify an invasion of Iraq.
The article quotes various foreign policy experts about what is at stake and what options the US government has. The Iranian government is described as "revolutionary" and an "Islamic theocracy." The entire discussion is firmly anchored within the Bush administration’s frame, i.e., Iran is a threat and what can We do about it. The issue is never framed as, "What can the countries of the world do to deter the
theocratic US president from committing further acts of war and aggression?"
Likewise, the issue is never framed as, :What is the Bush administration up to now, and is it possible that they are cooking up an 'Iran Threat' in order to help themselves politically?"
By helping the Bush administration hype the "Iran Threat," the MSM isplaying with fire. It is failing to exercise its journalistic responsibility to question the motives of powerful people, and it is behaving in a highly irresponsible manner, exactly as it performed during the buildup to the War in Iraq.
A much more skeptical approach is urgently needed, or we may find ourselves discussing how the MSM helped George W Bush start World War Three.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey M. Young
For the past 8 months or more I've been concerned about the corporate media's coverage of Iran. I think it mirrors their irresponsible coverage of Iraq during the buildup to the war. After seeing the Sunday Herald-Leader, I couldn't avoid calling up Managing Editor Tom Eblen about it. He called back Thursday and we discussed the issue by phone.
He asked me to write up my points in a concise way, and said he would send it on to various wire service people he knows. Apparently he is an officer in an association of wire service professionals. Here is what I sent him. I urge you to send similar messages to other media corporations.
Serious Concerns about Mainstream Media Coverage of Iran – April 20, 2006
Just as the idea of a threat from Saddam Hussein was consciously hyped by the Bush administration in 2002 and early 2003, the idea of Iran as an existential threat to the US is being hyped today. Coverage of the Iran nuclear issue over the past 6-8 months has had an impact: approximately half of the US population now fears Iranian nuclear weapons. The mainstream media (MSM) has contributed to this climate of fear by producing a stream of articles written from within the administration’s frame – Iran is a Threat to Us – and leaving out the critically important context of international law.
Key facts are being omitted from almost all MSM articles and reports:
1) Under the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the legal right to enrich uranium for nuclear power plants.
2) Israel has never signed the NPT and is widely believed to possess at least 200 advanced nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them onto Iran’s cities.
3) The US and other major nuclear powers have consistently ignored the provisions of the NPT that require the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. The Pentagon is even working to develop a new generation of smaller, “more usable,” mini-nukes and “bunker-busters,” an advance in the arms race that contradicts the spirit of Article VI of the NPT.
4) The US is taking hostile actions against Iran’s government. Congress has appropriated millions of dollars to “promote democracy” in Iran, and the Guardian Unlimited reports that US special forces have been operating in Iran to select sites for future air strikes and help armed opposition groups
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1750678,00.html (4/10/06).
How would Americans feel about similar actions being taken by a hostile foreign government on our soil? We would surely consider it an act of war.
5) If Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, which has not been proven, it is probably for the purpose of deterring an attack by Israel or the US. Iran is aware of the different policies the US has taken toward Iraq as compared to North Korea.
6) The current US administration has a proven track record of exaggerating threats and using fear in order to justify aggressive war. Has the MSM learned nothing from the Iraq experience?
7) An attack by the US and/or Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities would constitute the war crime of international aggression (unless the UN Security Council had first authorized an attack, which is almost inconceivable given the position of Russia and China).
8) Such an attack could lead to a much wider and longer war in the Middle East, and might even trigger a third world war between the US and much of the Muslim world.
A typical example of the right-wing frame appeared in the Lexington Herald-Leader on Sunday, April 16, pages A3 and A4. A full-page article by Andrew Maykuth of the Knight-Ridder News Service was titled,
"Portentous Power Play: Tehran’s insistence on enriching uranium could
destabilize a volatile region, damage energy markets and bring nuclear
weapons to an Islamic theocracy."
We see a map showing the range of Iranian missiles that, if fitted with hypothetical nuclear weapons that do not now exist, could "put targets in the Middle East and Asia – and American troops in the region – at risk."
We are not shown a map of US military facilities that could threaten the security of Iran, even though it was the US, not Iran, that invaded a neighboring country (Iraq) in 2003 in an unprovoked act of aggression, has troops fighting in another neighboring country, Afghanistan, ensures that no serious pressure will be exerted against Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, and just agreed to accept the legitimacy of India’s nuclear weapons. We also see the same kind of scary satellite photos of Iranian buildings that Colin Powell trotted out at the UN during the long campaign of deception designed to justify an invasion of Iraq.
The article quotes various foreign policy experts about what is at stake and what options the US government has. The Iranian government is described as "revolutionary" and an "Islamic theocracy." The entire discussion is firmly anchored within the Bush administration’s frame, i.e., Iran is a threat and what can We do about it. The issue is never framed as, "What can the countries of the world do to deter the
theocratic US president from committing further acts of war and aggression?"
Likewise, the issue is never framed as, :What is the Bush administration up to now, and is it possible that they are cooking up an 'Iran Threat' in order to help themselves politically?"
By helping the Bush administration hype the "Iran Threat," the MSM isplaying with fire. It is failing to exercise its journalistic responsibility to question the motives of powerful people, and it is behaving in a highly irresponsible manner, exactly as it performed during the buildup to the War in Iraq.
A much more skeptical approach is urgently needed, or we may find ourselves discussing how the MSM helped George W Bush start World War Three.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey M. Young
posted by Paschal Baute at 11:40 AM
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home