G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Media Coverage Helps Ahmadinejad, Harms US Public
By Danny Schechter
Created Sep 29 2007 - 10:04am
Mike Wallace was not in the best shape. He was wheezing and his eyes looked
like saucers as he accepted his umpteenth Emmy award at the TV Academy
dinner in New York on Monday night for his "60 Minutes" interview with the
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an almost unpronounceable name to
most Americans.
"Before that interview," he boasted, "none of us knew who this man was or
what he believed." There was incredulity in his voice as if he was some
modern explorer who went into the wilds and brought back the elusive monster
Bigfoot. The audience of nearly 1000 TV journalists applauded as if he had
accomplished a daring feat by getting a big bad guy on camera.
Sitting at my table in the Sheraton ballroom, three producers from overseas
marveled at all the international stories that were winning recognition as
if to say "you Americans are lucky to get so much coverage of the world."
They, of course, didn't know that most of the networks have long closed most
of their foreign bureaus, cut back on documentaries, and were deeply
complicit in uncritically doing more selling than telling in the run-up to
the Iraq war.
They didn't know that PBS, which swept the awards, won honors for a few
programs that have been on the air for 25 years, not for their news, and
that don't have a big audience relative to the commercial channels. They
don't know that, in fact, analytical and investigative reporting is at an
all time low. Surveys show most Americans know little about the world
despite TV's theoretical global reach.
They also don't know that many bloggers and progressive activists spend more
time bashing right-wing outlets like Fox (Example: all the hype around Bill
O'Reilly's convoluted comments [1] about dining in Harlem) than in
supporting independent media (like Mediachannel [2] or Link TV's Mosaic
program). Like the commercial channels, they focus on backing celebrity
politicians and partisan attacks on conservative talk show polarizers.
The UN General Assembly is meeting in New York. A high-powered conference on
global climate change with the top scientists in the world rated almost no
coverage. But the presence of the Iranian President became THE story because
of the controversy his visit generated and the chance to show the monster in
their midst.
"Despite the limited access, stations are deploying heavily around the city.
WNBC senior vice president of news Dan Forman said the channel has put 30%
more bodies on the street, thanks to the Iranian's presence, than it
typically would for the United Nations assembly.
Getting close to the controversial leader isn't feasible, so the stations
are relying on pool footage while deploying reporters to where he's speaking
for standups, commentary from protestors and passers-by and brief glimpses
at his passing car."
But of course this "pasing car" reportage is not about reporting the visit
in a thoughtful way, or assessing developments but, rather, inflaming public
opinion. More darkly, it's a case of demonization--a process that
Ahmadinejad participates in happily for his own reasons-and is being used
just like all the Saddam Hitler bashing was several years ago to prepare
public opinion for war.
The more outrageous his comments appear, whether they are or not, the more
public his smiling and taunting appears, the more the Bush Administration
wins over public opinion. Any efforts he makes to show another image--as in
wanting to visit Ground Zero--is, of course, forbidden.
The tabloids set the inflammatory tone in New York: "WIPE THAT SMIRK OFF
YOUR EVIL FACE," chastises the Daily News who calls him a "madman" and
worse. Not to be outdone Rupert's NY Post slams him as a "petty, cruel,
dictator" and writes about "MAD-MOUD'S WACKY WORLD." His talk at Columbia
University is headlined "Cuckoo at Columbia." Fox News' Greg Gutfeld opens
up both barrels, saying, "so the fould-smelling fruitbat Ahmajadinejad spoke
at that crack-house know as Columbia University today." No language is
off-limits, no ridicule out of bounds.
This suits the the Iranian leader, who TIME has called "a dark genius at
mobilizing Iranian public opinion." Now he is the victim of a rude College
president and an even ruder press. Down in the polls at home, the US media
coverage has played right into his hands with the effect of also keeping the
US public ever more ignorant about the country we may bomb next.
Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post also scolds the self-styled responsible
press for giving more exposure to Neo-con know-nothings and less visibility
for people who we can learn from.
"Reporters should be seeking out experts who actually understand the
Middle East -- because the vast majority of them think that attacking Iran
would be a huge mistake. A small group of neoconservatives is
ever-more-loudly beating the drums for military action against Iran - and
getting a lot of attention....They are more or less the same so-called
'experts' who enthusiastically advocated the invasion of Iraq, making
similarly authoritative-sounding declarations about the uselessness of
diplomacy and the easy triumph of military might."
Juan Cole, a leading academic expert on the region writes:
"There is, in fact, remarkably little substance to the debates now raging
in the United States about Ahmadinejad. His quirky personality, penchant for
outrageous one-liners, and combative populism are hardly serious concerns
for foreign policy. Taking potshots at a bantam **** of a populist like
Ahmadinejad is actually a way of expressing another, deeper anxiety: fear of
Iran's rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American
and Israeli status quo. The real reason his visit is controversial is that
the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against
Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state."
And who is doing the "configuring?" The very same media that seems to have
learned nothing from its cheerleading for war with Iraq.
Here we go again: Jingoism, not journalism.
Isn't this something we ought to care about and do something about?
_______
About author News Dissector Danny Schechter spent eight years working for
ABC News. He now edits Mediachannel.org [2]. Info on his latest film at
InDebtWeTrust.com [2]. Comments to Dissector@mediachannel.org [2]
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Danny Schechter
Created Sep 29 2007 - 10:04am
Mike Wallace was not in the best shape. He was wheezing and his eyes looked
like saucers as he accepted his umpteenth Emmy award at the TV Academy
dinner in New York on Monday night for his "60 Minutes" interview with the
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an almost unpronounceable name to
most Americans.
"Before that interview," he boasted, "none of us knew who this man was or
what he believed." There was incredulity in his voice as if he was some
modern explorer who went into the wilds and brought back the elusive monster
Bigfoot. The audience of nearly 1000 TV journalists applauded as if he had
accomplished a daring feat by getting a big bad guy on camera.
Sitting at my table in the Sheraton ballroom, three producers from overseas
marveled at all the international stories that were winning recognition as
if to say "you Americans are lucky to get so much coverage of the world."
They, of course, didn't know that most of the networks have long closed most
of their foreign bureaus, cut back on documentaries, and were deeply
complicit in uncritically doing more selling than telling in the run-up to
the Iraq war.
They didn't know that PBS, which swept the awards, won honors for a few
programs that have been on the air for 25 years, not for their news, and
that don't have a big audience relative to the commercial channels. They
don't know that, in fact, analytical and investigative reporting is at an
all time low. Surveys show most Americans know little about the world
despite TV's theoretical global reach.
They also don't know that many bloggers and progressive activists spend more
time bashing right-wing outlets like Fox (Example: all the hype around Bill
O'Reilly's convoluted comments [1] about dining in Harlem) than in
supporting independent media (like Mediachannel [2] or Link TV's Mosaic
program). Like the commercial channels, they focus on backing celebrity
politicians and partisan attacks on conservative talk show polarizers.
The UN General Assembly is meeting in New York. A high-powered conference on
global climate change with the top scientists in the world rated almost no
coverage. But the presence of the Iranian President became THE story because
of the controversy his visit generated and the chance to show the monster in
their midst.
"Despite the limited access, stations are deploying heavily around the city.
WNBC senior vice president of news Dan Forman said the channel has put 30%
more bodies on the street, thanks to the Iranian's presence, than it
typically would for the United Nations assembly.
Getting close to the controversial leader isn't feasible, so the stations
are relying on pool footage while deploying reporters to where he's speaking
for standups, commentary from protestors and passers-by and brief glimpses
at his passing car."
But of course this "pasing car" reportage is not about reporting the visit
in a thoughtful way, or assessing developments but, rather, inflaming public
opinion. More darkly, it's a case of demonization--a process that
Ahmadinejad participates in happily for his own reasons-and is being used
just like all the Saddam Hitler bashing was several years ago to prepare
public opinion for war.
The more outrageous his comments appear, whether they are or not, the more
public his smiling and taunting appears, the more the Bush Administration
wins over public opinion. Any efforts he makes to show another image--as in
wanting to visit Ground Zero--is, of course, forbidden.
The tabloids set the inflammatory tone in New York: "WIPE THAT SMIRK OFF
YOUR EVIL FACE," chastises the Daily News who calls him a "madman" and
worse. Not to be outdone Rupert's NY Post slams him as a "petty, cruel,
dictator" and writes about "MAD-MOUD'S WACKY WORLD." His talk at Columbia
University is headlined "Cuckoo at Columbia." Fox News' Greg Gutfeld opens
up both barrels, saying, "so the fould-smelling fruitbat Ahmajadinejad spoke
at that crack-house know as Columbia University today." No language is
off-limits, no ridicule out of bounds.
This suits the the Iranian leader, who TIME has called "a dark genius at
mobilizing Iranian public opinion." Now he is the victim of a rude College
president and an even ruder press. Down in the polls at home, the US media
coverage has played right into his hands with the effect of also keeping the
US public ever more ignorant about the country we may bomb next.
Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post also scolds the self-styled responsible
press for giving more exposure to Neo-con know-nothings and less visibility
for people who we can learn from.
"Reporters should be seeking out experts who actually understand the
Middle East -- because the vast majority of them think that attacking Iran
would be a huge mistake. A small group of neoconservatives is
ever-more-loudly beating the drums for military action against Iran - and
getting a lot of attention....They are more or less the same so-called
'experts' who enthusiastically advocated the invasion of Iraq, making
similarly authoritative-sounding declarations about the uselessness of
diplomacy and the easy triumph of military might."
Juan Cole, a leading academic expert on the region writes:
"There is, in fact, remarkably little substance to the debates now raging
in the United States about Ahmadinejad. His quirky personality, penchant for
outrageous one-liners, and combative populism are hardly serious concerns
for foreign policy. Taking potshots at a bantam **** of a populist like
Ahmadinejad is actually a way of expressing another, deeper anxiety: fear of
Iran's rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American
and Israeli status quo. The real reason his visit is controversial is that
the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against
Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state."
And who is doing the "configuring?" The very same media that seems to have
learned nothing from its cheerleading for war with Iraq.
Here we go again: Jingoism, not journalism.
Isn't this something we ought to care about and do something about?
_______
About author News Dissector Danny Schechter spent eight years working for
ABC News. He now edits Mediachannel.org [2]. Info on his latest film at
InDebtWeTrust.com [2]. Comments to Dissector@mediachannel.org [2]
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson