|
Ahmadinejad tries to sucker U.S. media -- again
Commentary: Journalists should be wary of the 'Fidel Syndrome'
By Jon Friedman, MarketWatch
Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Jun 17, 2009
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. media have a challenge as they cover the newly re-elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.
Western journalists, always anxious to appeal to the rampant anti-Tehran sentiments in this country, must nonetheless resist an easy temptation. If they blast the despot, they run the risk of allowing him to claim martyr status in his own country, where anti-U.S. feelings run deep. The media can unwittingly have the effect of isolating Ahmadinejad and making him look stronger than ever at home.
I call it the media's "Fidel Syndrome."
After Fidel Castro swept to power in Cuba five decades ago, journalists ultimately created a larger-than-life portrayal of him. That media image has pretty much lasted to this day -- muted, somewhat, by Castro's recent failing health -- even though the Cuban leader proved to have more bark than bite on the global stage over time.
Yes, I'm aware that Iran is a genuine threat both to Israel and the fragile stability of the Middle East in general. And sure, Ahmadinejad seems sincere in his diatribes against America. After the sobering reality of 9/11, we no longer have the luxury of laughing off eccentric dictators, from North Korea to Iran.
Still, I've always been skeptical about how American reporters in particular give weight to Ahmadinejad's threats. Eager to sell newspapers, raise magazine circulations and boost television ratings, journalists may be making the mistake of exaggerating the Iranian leader's position.
The Iran story certainly has preoccupied the media in the United States.
"It was the hotly contested June 12 Iranian presidential election, which pitted hard-line incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against the more moderate Mir Hussein Moussavi, that was the most dynamic and fluid story of the week," said Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism at the Pew Research Center in Washington.
"It was the No. 4 story overall, filling 6% of the newshole. But late in the week -- from June 12-14 -- it dominated U.S. media coverage, accounting for almost 20% of the newshole," Rosenstiel pointed out on Tuesday.
Adept leader
As dictators go, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is top shelf. He is adept at keeping his people down, treating foreign media with undisguised contempt -- and possibly rigging his nation's recent election.
Ahmadinejad, announced as the winner of a second four-year term, railed against the foreign media and charged them with reckless coverage that harmed his people.
"This is a great victory at a time when the ... propaganda facilities outside Iran and sometimes inside Iran were totally mobilized against our people," Ahmadinejad said, as related by the Associated Press.
Ahmadinejad, the bane of President Obama's foreign policy, asked his nation to respect the vote. He spoke after his pro-reform challenger rejected the outcome and accused the authorities of carrying out election fraud.
Even without the benefit of having Ahmadinejad's rivals invoke a "hidden chad," this election has all the makings of a media circus.
And Ahmadinejad sure knows how to whip up a media circus, all right. Two years ago, he played the media for suckers when he delivered a speech at Columbia University in New York City, which just happened to be the media capital of the Western world. Even though Ahmadinejad conveyed all of the sincerity of a carnival barker during that visit, journalists dutifully recorded for posterity his every utterance.
As I wrote in my Sept. 26, 2007, Media Web column: "The despot gave an enlightening lesson in how to manage the U.S. media: Be vague. Obfuscate. Smile mindlessly -- a lot. Be friendly. Nod wisely instead of speaking foolishly. Say absolutely nothing threatening or menacing. Turn their image of you on its head. And, for God's sake, man, say nothing of substance."
With any luck, when the hubbub dissipates, it will turn out that the Iranian despot has gone to the media-manipulation well one too many times. Let's hope the American media won't fall for this act all over again.
Auletta's view
When I asked the New Yorker media critic Ken Auletta about recent coverage of Iran, he questioned whether some journalists had fallen into a trap of making ill-advised predictions about the outcome of the election.
Auletta told me in an email message: "The foremost question, for me, is whether the polls and pre-election coverage by the Western press was accurate. It left the audience thinking that the more moderate candidate would sweep to victory.
"If it was accurate and did not confuse university students with the masses, then the coverage that suggests the election was stolen and that the incumbent says his anti-American and other positions will only harden, appears to adhere to the truth. If the pre-election coverage was inaccurate, the incumbent has reason to feel resentful, his paranoia stoked."
Auletta suggests that the media coverage will go a long way to influencing the way the American people think about Iran -- and how President Obama will ultimately regard him in official negotiations.
"While I think press coverage is important, more important than how the Western press plays the election is how the American government reacts," Auletta posited. He adds that with his initial muted reaction to Ahmadinejad's triumph, Obama is sending a strong, if subliminal message, of his own to Tehran.
"By issuing restrained statements, refusing to either congratulate Ahmadinejad or to denounce him, the Obama administration has deftly declined to give him ammunition to shoot at America," Auletta said.
MEDIA WEB QUESTION OF THE WEEK: How should the American media cover Ahmadinejad?
|