The End of Blogging about Iran (Updated)
Posted by KamangirApr 1
Couple of months ago, I would browse into Persian news sources and I would find interesting news to talk about in my blog. A month ago, I would look at Pajamas Media for the news. These days, I just turn on the TV and watch the rather pacifist CBC. Unfortunately, I might say devilishly, no one needs me anymore; a few hours after Fars published pictures of the Basij members chanting against the UK, CNN picked the news. I know this might seem a bit pathetic, but how would you feel if when you started talking about your last night’s romantic dinner, everybody knew everything? What if they even corrected your mistakes? For some reason, the world is looking straight into the Islamic Republic’s most private areas. I am not sure what that means, if anything other than sniffing big trouble.
Here is a short account of what was NOT covered in the news, or cautiously speaking, what I did not find in the news.
Ahmadinejad flew to Khuzestan, the scene of the eight-year war with Iraq “to visit the [former] front“. His visit was greeted by two F-5 planes doing a short airshow. Then, he watched a night-drill by the army. In another news, tomorrow, couple of students’ organizations will protest in front of the British Embassy. The list of the organizations published by Rajanews, a pro-Ahmadinejad website, contains the name of an anti-Ahmadinejad pro-reform group, namely Tahkim-e Vahdat.
Update: Sorry! Bad vocabulary.
Kamangir:
Speaking of Persian news, I read this in a Lebanese paper: “Iran warns of Israeli ‘suicide attack’ starting in Lebanon, Syria” (http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2007/03/iran_warns_of_i.php).
The story, as it is reported is laughable. I always wonder if the story was translated incorrectly. Was this story reported in any of the Iranian news sources?
Maybe the Iranian regime is getting nervous about something like the Saudia peace plan, since it sort of leaves Iran out in the cold.
Wait a minute. Iran abducts UK sailors, and Iranians protest in front of the British Embassy? Um. Does that seem backwards? What exactly are they trying to get the ambassadors to do? What an odd world we live in.
Robby,
Yes, I had read about that before. I think he meant Israel is going to attack Lebanon. Any way, I think you are right.
IRI wants everybody to play a good dogie, you know, abduct some sailors and UK will say “do what you want to do with them, pretty please”. In the meantime BBC is helping Iran airing the documentary showing [military, clips of war with Iraq, clips of Ahmadinejad, Khamenei praying, people praying and Khomeini speeches] that all Iranians will go to war if anybody will start doing something because “every day is Ashura, and every land is Karbala” so better not to do anything.
Robby
I would not count on any Saudi peace plan. They want to make peace in Lebanon, they want to make peace in Iraq, they want to make peace in Palestine. But what they really want is a leadership of all muslims and what they really care about is proselytization of wahabi creed.
In Iraq they want to help sunni but do not want to help all Iraqis, in Lebanon they help to prolong the stand off regarding Hairi murder investigation. Naturally they would do anything to decrease Iran and Hizbullah popularity, but I am not sure that the end result of Saudi efforts would be good for any other country but KSA.
I have satellite TV and I watch a lot of news. I watch Fox-CNN-BBC-Links offerings etc. One of the big problems I have with the US (particularly so with the US media) and the World news media in general, especially the television broadcasting industry, is they only cover the news that sells advertising. In the case of news about Iran, that is usually when the Iran leadership is rattling their sabers like they are currently. I can remember several months ago watching a round table discussion where experts were discussing the current leadership of Iran and their support and power structure. During the discussion a guest commentator, who was not a regular news correspondent (sorry but I cannot remember her name), brought up that at the very time they were discussing the need for people within Iran had to step-up and seek change in the country, that students in Tehran were protesting and demonstrating for more freedoms. And she went on to say that not one US News Media was offering coverage or even talking of the demonstrations. She was right. I followed the news that entire day flipping channel to channel to see if any television media source would mention the demonstration. Not one did. The Worlds media and experts often speak of the need for change in Iran’s treatment of their citizens, but where is the support from the media and experts that displays those taking to the streets and risking their personal freedom while trying to take Iran into a new era of equality and as an example of a bastion of freedom for all nations to recognize. You rarely see the protestors get any prime time coverage, only the saber rattlers. That support will be needed to fight oppression. Yet it is rare, even in the free press countries, when you see the risks taken by the brave within Iran seeking their rights to be free of oppression. That needs to be corrected.
Thescoundrel
But it is not only US media that cover the news that sells advertising or is popular with the TV viewers. Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya also cover the news which sells, but among the muslims in the ME. I have read blog from Jordan and one of the statement the blogger made when she moved to US got my attention. She said that in US she “missed” the daily dosage of myhem and in Iraq and elswhere shown on the evening news on arabic TV. It is obvious that the clips of “murderous israelis” or american “crimes” in Iraq would be popular in that area so of course they show it every day. It improves their rating among the arabs and muslims.
But I also think that there are so many news from all over the word that MSM must of necessity be choosy, they can not cover everything. There are news from ME, from China, from South East Asia, from South America and although some of us what to know more about what is going on in Iran others would prefer to know more about China maneuvers or perhaps murky dealings in Tri-border area.
ups
should be “daily dosage of mayhem in Iraq” i/o daily dosage of mayhem and in Iraq”
sorry.
Arash,
You definitely should not stop blogging about Iran. For as big as most news organizations are in the US, their reporters rely on second and third-hand accounts of news to know which first-hand accounts to write about.
What we are witnessing now in media is an interplay between new and old mediums–major newspapers trawling blogs and other individual websites for headlines. Look at http://www.drudgereport.com and then http://www.foxnews.com to see how news reported on new media (drudge) quickly finds its way into mainstream media (fox) before the end of each day. Similarly, look at how renowned reporters and columnists have opted to leave major publications in favor of internet only publications. Mike Allen, formerly of Time magazine is a great example. You can find his work now at http://www.thepolitico.com.
This is all a round about way of saying that pictures and stories that you post on your site serve as an important link between what is reported in the mainstream western news sources and what is being reported in mainstream middle-eastern (and far-eastern for that matter) news sources. It is blogs like yours that encourage people to question the daily news report. The alleged death of Khamnei is a perfect example–as soon as Mr. Ledeen had reported him dead you were on the phone to family and friends in Iran for first-hand rumblings.
In any case, please continue your excellent posts and commentary and please do resist the temptation to change the format of your blog to one where the latest shoe fashions from Milan or innovations in farm equipment from Kansas first find their home. The highlighting of Iran in the news offers you immense new opportunities in examining your perspective on Iran from the outside.
Ba sepas,
Matthew
Matthew,
Wow! That was flattering. :)
Sorry guys, veering off-topic but some issues here I fear are being raised a little carelessly:
The key thing with Wahabiism is that it is in /certain ways/ incredibly apolitical, at least from its Saudi sources. Even Osama BinLaden never tried to incite any political change in Saud and, while he complained about his being disowned by his affluent connections there, never did anything about it.
The Saudi government is completely secular in terms of action. This may sound like a good thing, so let me rephrase: It is completely soulless. It has no reason to reflect any of the views of its own people, who are completely drunk on the opiate or simply repressed by a very secure hand.
To laud Saudi Arabia while complaining about theocracy in Hezbollah, in Hamas, or even the IR, is something I find perverse (although I know everyone disagrees with me). Saudi Arabia does nothing to help anyone, but holds meetings and asks for peace. Like so many darling children European states. Saudi Arabia is a strong ally in the war on terror. It is a secure slave camp living off US subsidies. Of course, most anti-IR polemicists will think that US subsidy is a fantastic thing, a stamp of freedom and global security. I personally think it is tragic.
Zartara,
I think you need to check your facts. The follows of Ibn Abdul Wahhab (Wahhabists) in Saudi Arabia cut a deal with the Saudi family just before the dawn of the 20th century whereby they would not question the authority of the Saudi family in governing secular matters (so as not to cause fitna/division among the believers) and in turn the Saud family would cede all religious decision making ability to the Wahhabists. They’re not apolitical however as they participate in Saudi political life on a grand scale.
Osama Bin Laden did try to incite political change in Saud. He saw the monarchy as a tool of America and, in any case, un-Islamic because of the boozing and whoring of many of the princes of the family. Also, if we want to argue the minutiae of categorization, Osama would be considered a Salafist or a Kharijite by many.