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.

Misinformation

Middle Easterners are seen as terrorist or as Islamic fundamentalists because of the public’s lack of knowledge about the region and its people. Leading to the harassment and discrimination of Middle Easterns, proven by the reactions after 9/11 as well as past events such as the Oklahoma City bombings where the first suspects to be considered were Middle Easterners.

This lack of knowledge effects policy; the public seeing Middle Easterners as a threat advocate passing of laws that take away civil liberties and due process rights and change immigration laws.

Entertainment for years has painted Middle Easterners as terrorist or Islamic fundamentalist for entertainment purposes, by doing this they are doing their job-entertaining the masses but they should practice responsible journalism-what are future consequences, is portrayal of a certain class of people and its effects, and are the portrayals accurate.

Rumor: War with Iran

The Bush administration is already trying to sell a war with Iran as it did with Iraq, by making the same allegations it made against Iraq.

This cartoon was chosen because the same tactics used to convince the public to support the war on Iraq are being used again but this time for going to war with Iran. The public easily forgets and moves on to new headlines. But it is important to remember past events, to learn from them and to question governmental actions especially if they have proven to cause harm before.

(cartoon:http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://cagle.com/news/IranNuclearPower/main.asp)

Article about Iranian media in the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4804328.stm

This picture offers another side to the Iran nuclear debate. American media coverage seems to cover the issue with only the American perspective in mind: that we are in danger if Iran builds weapons of mass destruction. However the media does not look at the deeper issue: why Iran and North Korea would want to build weapons of mass destruction and what messages is our government sending to Iran and North Korea. They do not look at the bigger picture.

Media Sources in Iran

Media in Iran after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in June 2005 has gone through new changes: restrictions, closures, and new technologically.

After the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the media in Iran has faced financial and political problems. Several newspapers which differed from the government, reformist newspapers, have closed and the journalists have been jailed.

The newspapers are in a hard place because the government’s and the public’s demands differ; the government wants the media to keep in line with its views on news while the public want the newspapers to report independently, not the official news given by the government. That is why reading the news paper is decreasing; the official stats from Tehran figure that there are only 30 daily papers in print.

So, where do Iranians get there news: Internet, America, and other Iranians.

It has been estimated that seven million Iranians are online but people still face obstacles in getting news online because the government has started to filter web sites.

They can get news from America as well; Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice asked Congress recently for $75 million dollars to broadcasts and fund anti-government groups in Iran. However an official who had been part of the Clinton administration told the Washington Post that the anti-governments the Bush administration wants to fund have very little support inside Iran and cannot successfully challenge the Iranian government. Furthermore Iranians do not really trust America and Iran uses jamming technology to block America’s broadcasts.

Then there are the Iranians living outside of Iran who have more credibility than American broadcasts and who the American government has also started to fund. Iranians living outside use the internet to provide Iranians with news and an outlet for Iranians to express themselves. However most are anti-government and openly support the Shah’s son. They also face problems because their news sources come from average Iranians; they do not usually have journalists on ‘the ground.’

In general it seems that Iranians access to the press and information is limited and they face many restrictions and biases.

International Dilemma

Iran decided to discontinue negotiations with Russia after the IAEA decided to report Iran to the Security Council; and it has resumed uranium enrichment work.

So what should the international community do?

It can sit back and take Iran’s word that the nuclear research is for energy production and not for the development of nuclear weapons. However this could have been accomplished if Iran had accepted Russia’s proposal.

Economic sanctions can be put in place but this would have devastating results on the civilian population as well as enrage Muslims around the world, like the economic sanctions in Iraq did; and it would not cause Iran to stop uranium enrichment. And it would give terrorist cells more justifications for attacking “the West.”

Iran can be invaded as well but that would have worse results than the economic sanctions.

The international community can make a deal similar to the one made by the US with India…which allows access to civilian nuclear technology and the building of nuclear power plants by foreign companies; in the deal military and civilian nuclear research is kept completely separate. This choice is risky and modifications to ‘the deal’ need to be made for the international community to accept and it requires a lot of trust but the deal may allow them to monitor Iran’s nuclear research better then in the past.

Whatever route the international community takes it needs to consider the impact the decision will have on Iran’s citizens, the Muslim world, and the international community.