A Failure of Imagination
There's obviously a good deal of news coming out of Iran-- much of it potentially positive from the American perspective (and also from the perspective of general humanity).
Why is this news chiefly disseminated on the Internet? Why does Aaron Brown so seldom see fit to report on the possible powderkeg of Iran?
It is a function of political bias creating a failure of imagination.
The liberal news media does not believe that Bush's ambitious foreign policy could possibly work. We here at Ace of Spades do not believe with great certainty that it will work, but we are certainly open to (and hopeful for) the possibility that it could.
Not so the establishment print and broadcast news media. They are openly hostile to Bush's policy. Furthermore, in their heart of hearts, they don't want his policy to work. Were the Iraq War to cause a reverse-domino toppling of enemy regimes, it could only be called a victory for Bush (try as the media might to do the opposite). Good news for Bush is bad news for liberals and the media, as freely, and with an unseemly absence of shame, admitted by the ever-diminishing Michael Kinsely. (Poor Mr. Kinsley has "mixed emotions" about good news for the country, like an improving economy and the capture of Saddam Hussein.)
This political bias leads, in turn, to an utter failure of imagination as to the range of possibilites of what could happen. The recent news from Iran does not mean that a violent overthrow of the theocrats is imminent. We would be guilty of the precise opposite bias of the news media were we to suggest such a thing.
But events in Iran do suggest, possibly, that a crisis point is nearing.
The media is ever-alert for the possibility that Bush will be proven to be guilty of impeachment-level offenses; they actively follow all leads in that arena and breathlessly report of possible indications of presidential or vice-presidential felonies. The imagination of the media definitely does embrace the possibility of a public and legal repudiation of Bush. They are therefore quite thorough when it comes to such stories.
But their outright hostility to Bush, and especially to the Iraq war, prevents them from imagining that tangible positives might emerge from it. To the press, it is simply inconceivable that Iran could ever implode.
Thus, the constant barrage of Halliburton stories, and the peculiar dearth of stories about Iran. It's not that the mainstream media actively promotes Halliburton stories as potentially leading to impeachment or political repudiation; they don't. But they do seem open to such an eventuality, and therefore deem it important to keep the public appraised on the developing storyline.
But they plainly do not see the reports from Iran as possibly leading anywhere important. And thus, they don't deem these stories as particularly newsworthy.
Compare this situation to the media's utter lack of preparedness for the capture of Saddam Hussein. To the media, it was all but inconceivable that Saddam Hussein would ever be captured. In reality, Saddam's capture was near-inevitable; it was more a question of "when" not "if." And a fairly short-term "when" to boot. The shock and anguish on the faces of the liberal newsmen charged with the distasteful duty of reporting Saddam's capture to the American public spoke volumes. It was grim news, and furthermore it was utterly surprising news-- a "political UFO," as Tom Brokaw called it, a fantastically strange visitation from a bizarre alternate universe where black is white and Bush is occassionally competent.
Right now the American public has little comprehension that the political situation in Iran is deterioriating. They have not been so informed because the media simply cannot imagine that unfolding events in Iran could lead anywhere.
It could be that in three or six months, the media will once again stunned and dismayed by events that were both perfectly foreseeable and yet perfectly unforeseen. Once again, they could be ashen-complexion and grim-mouthed as they report on "breaking news" that in fact had been breaking for months and years without their notice.
The next "UFO" might be buzzing the minarets in Teheran.
posted at 13.1.04 by Black
http://www.ace-o-spades.blogspot.com/Economist does a song and dance. They were the first to put Batebi on their cover with the title "Iran's New Revolution", then they turned staunchly pro-Reformist movement because of a journalist named Guy Dinmore.
Guy Dinmore was actually very critical, until one day he become very critical of Iran's opposition instead of the regime.
He came to the US to meet with the NIAC (a civic group Iranian-American group that receives tax-exemption, which is vastly critical of opposition movements, President Bush, and Iranians seeking Secular government, most people believe they're funded by the Islamic Republic).
He lost vast credibility when he did that.