PDA

View Full Version : An interesting observation concerning Iran and the news media



Redleg
08-22-2006, 14:57
Well Iran has given the west an answer concerning the nuclear question. What I found interesting is the way it is being reported in different place. From the Washington Post. Its requires a registation so I will post the whole article in a spoil.


Iran Rejects Offer For Nuclear Talks
Demand for Immediate Freeze Cited

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; Page A11

The Iranian government has told senior European officials that it will not accept the only condition set by the Bush administration and its Western allies for talks on the country's nuclear program and will continue enriching uranium, despite the threat of international sanctions, several senior U.S. and European officials said yesterday.

Diplomats in Washington, Tehran and European capitals said the Iranian government is willing to enter negotiations and to consider a freeze of the program, but it will not accept a freeze as a precondition for the talks.

Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, informed Javier Solana, foreign policy chief for the European Union, of the decision in a phone call over the weekend. The two men will likely meet again today, along with representatives of France, Britain and Germany, to discuss the Iranian position. But U.S. officials said they would push for strong financial sanctions against the Tehran government and expected support from Europe.

The Iranian position is nearly identical to its initial reaction to the offer, which was presented in June and includes a package of U.S.-backed economic and political incentives. U.S., British and French diplomats concluded yesterday, after receiving word of Iran's intention, that the government simply bought time to advance its nuclear program, rather than scale it back as the U.N. resolution requires.

In Tehran, the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the nuclear program is peaceful and will continue. "The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its own decision, and in the nuclear case, God willing, with patience and power, will continue its path," Khamenei was quoted as saying by state television.

Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy director of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told an Iranian news agency that "under current circumstances, the suspension of uranium enrichment is not possible." Still, he said Iran's response would be "very comprehensive" and would provide "a suitable opportunity for the West to solve the nuclear dossier through negotiations."

President Bush said yesterday that he would wait for the formal reply, but, anticipating the rejection, he urged the United Nations to respond forcefully. "There must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the United Nations Security Council, and we will work with people in the Security Council to achieve that objective," he said.

Earlier this month, the Security Council passed a resolution giving Iran 30 days to stop the program or face the threat of sanctions. For the first time, U.S. officials began feeling optimistic that sanctions could be achieved. "The U.N. resolution calls for us to come back together on the 31st of August," Bush said yesterday. "Dates -- you know, dates are fine, but what really matters is will, and one of the things I will continue to remind our friends and allies is the danger of a nuclear-armed" Iran.

But even some of Washington's closest allies worried yesterday that the effort was becoming more difficult, complicated by the recent fighting in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah, which is backed financially and militarily by Iran.

"The Iranians are extremely confident following the outcome of the Israel conflict," said one senior European official, who agreed to discuss sensitive details in the matter on the condition of anonymity. "Their Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis has gone from minority player to lionized hero of the Arab street."

A U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said senior U.S., French, German and British diplomats agreed during a conference call yesterday to press for sanctions.

Even before fighting broke out in Lebanon, many Security Council members seemed skittish about imposing financial measures against a major oil exporter.

For years, the Bush administration has tried to convince allies to pressure Iran to give up a program that the Tehran government insists is for generating electricity, and not part of a covert nuclear weapons effort.

But Iran, rich in oil and natural gas, built its nuclear program in secret over 18 years. It was forced to acknowledge the large-scale program and accept an outside investigation after an Iranian exile group, listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization, publicly revealed the location of Iran's largest nuclear facility, in Natanz, four years ago.

Since then, inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency have been trying to determine the scope and history of Iran's nuclear efforts. They have conducted hundreds of inspections, uncovered Iranian experiments with plutonium and uranium, and exposed a secret relationship between Iran and Pakistan, which was instrumental in the development of Iran's nuclear program.

The inspectors, however, have been unable to confirm Tehran's claims that its nuclear energy program is peaceful. Yesterday, officials in Vienna, where the IAEA is based, said Iran had refused a request by inspectors in the past week to view construction progress at the Natanz site, a vast complex that houses uranium-enrichment efforts.

Inspectors, preparing to report on Iran's program to U.N. members next month, are trying to determine how much uranium the Iranians have enriched in the last several months. Although Iran is advancing its nuclear efforts, U.N. inspectors, as well as analysts working for U.S. and British intelligence, believe the Iranians are technically poor at enriching uranium.

Based on what is known about Iran's program, Western intelligence believes that it will be years before Iran can manufacture enough uranium for a nuclear bomb.


And then from Reuters

Iran hands over reply to nuclear incentives offer By Edmund Blair
30 minutes ago



TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Tuesday handed over its reply to an incentives package by world powers aimed at allaying Western fears that Tehran seeks to build atomic bombs, Iran's state-run Arabic-language Al-Alam television reported.

Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, gave the response to foreign envoys representing the six co-sponsors of the package in Tehran.

Al-Alam gave no details of the reply which Iranian officials have already indicated is unlikely to address a key demand by the U.N. Security Council that it suspend uranium enrichment work by an August 31 deadline or face the threat of sanctions.

"I expect a very ambiguous answer," said one Western diplomat.

The world's fourth largest oil exporter insists it will not abandon what it calls its right to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power stations.

Refusing to suspend the work, which Iran says is aimed only at generating electricity but which the West sees as a disguised bid for atom bombs, would be tantamount to rejecting the package of incentives offered in return, Western diplomats say.

A rebuff would not yet trigger immediate action by the U.N. Security Council, which passed a resolution on July 31 giving Iran a month to halt enrichment or risk sanctions.

"We are not treating (Tuesday) as a deadline because it is not the Security Council deadline," one Western diplomat said. "If Iran flatly refuses to suspend enrichment, then there will, fairly soon, be more talks in the Security Council."

TWO-WAY ROAD

Security Council permanent members Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States plus Germany have offered Iran a range of economic, political and security incentives if it suspends atomic work that could be used to make nuclear bombs.

Iran has said its reply to the offer will be "multi-dimensional," suggesting no simple 'yes' or 'no'. Officials have also said Iran wants more talks to resolve the dispute.

"Confidence building is a two-way road, trust is always a two-way road," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in response to questions after a lecture in Pretoria, South Africa.

"Based on negotiations, there is a possibility for a comprehensive solution to this matter," he said.

A "multi-dimensional" reply, say diplomats, could lay bare divisions in the Security Council where the United States, France and Britain back sanctions but Russia and China, the other two veto-wielding members and both key trade partners of Iran, oppose them.

"If they reject suspension, that's rejection of the package (for Western capitals)," said another Western diplomat. He added that Russia and China might take a different view.

"If they said suspension was negotiable, there would be pressure on (the six powers) to think about it."
[/quote]

What I really found interesting was the conclusions that each headline wanted the reader to conclude before reading the article.

Don Corleone
08-22-2006, 15:04
I hadn't seen the Post article, but I did think when reading the Reuter's one that the Iranian propaganda ministry couldn't have written it better. I heard the story on NPR radio and it went one further... it contradicted the Post and said that the supreme ayatollah had said absolutely no discussion of halting or slowing nuclear refinement would be allowed at the talks.

L'Impresario
08-22-2006, 16:22
but I did think when reading the Reuter's one that the Iranian propaganda ministry couldn't have written it better.

The Reuter's article? There is no commentary there. Unless the citations prove something that I can't actually grasp.

Don Corleone
08-22-2006, 16:37
I meant that it was very telling more in what it did not say, then in what it did. Reuters article was essentially "Iran delivered it's response to the IAEC on time". Well, yes, strictly speaking, that is what happened. But what was the response? What was the rationale behind the response? How well did it jibe with overtures that had been made? Did the response seem to indicate that Iran was continuing to pursue nuclear weapons?

I mean, we all know the answers to these questions. I just find it interesting that Reuters decided to not include them with the story. In my mind, it would be the equivalent of publishing a story "On Septmber 11th, 2001, 4 domestic US flights were diverted from their published flight plan due to unscheduled interruptions".

L'Impresario
08-22-2006, 16:45
This is Reuters. A news agency, not a newspaper. They start their sentences with "said", "claimed", "reported" etc. They aren't there to provide commentary.

Don Corleone
08-22-2006, 16:59
Reuters provides plenty of commentary when it suits their purposes:
(sorry, none of the link/tag/smiley buttons are working)
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/2003_Dishonest_Reporting_-Award-.asp

I can find plenty of additional instances, should you like.

L'Impresario
08-22-2006, 17:24
No, the link doesn't concern itself with commentary but mostly with the factual accuracy, as well as headlines and terminology. Headlines can be considered as a brief commentary at times, but still it doesn't make a news report the equivalent of a commentary, plus more or less sensationalist titles are not something above any media.
OTOH the site from the link appears consistently biased and its search regarding the headlines is not quite serious; it's dissapointing that in order to attack the negative points of journalism they aren't willing to avoid the same pitfall.

Don Corleone
08-22-2006, 17:38
They never claimed to be unbiased. They simply point out that Reuters claim to be is absurd, and it is.

ICantSpellDawg
08-23-2006, 15:17
I meant that it was very telling more in what it did not say, then in what it did. Reuters article was essentially "Iran delivered it's response to the IAEC on time". Well, yes, strictly speaking, that is what happened. But what was the response? What was the rationale behind the response? How well did it jibe with overtures that had been made? Did the response seem to indicate that Iran was continuing to pursue nuclear weapons?

I mean, we all know the answers to these questions. I just find it interesting that Reuters decided to not include them with the story. In my mind, it would be the equivalent of publishing a story "On Septmber 11th, 2001, 4 domestic US flights were diverted from their published flight plan due to unscheduled interruptions".


I didn't find this at all. The "On Time" bit was not part of the opening. It simply stated that a reply was made.

almost 5 lines down, a western diplomat stated that this reply was ambiguous and served to provide iran with more time to skirt around the issue.

am i missing something or are these article relativly fair? what do we expect from such a minimal human endeavor? there were no calls for peace regarding an iran that is trying its best to please the demanding west. there were also no calls for war against a shadowy iran - but i think that the two articles did support the idea that the west is becoming rightfully ancy.

listen, i have my own incredibly biased position on this issue that is very similar to my position on pre-invasion iraq. at the same time, i did not get the vibe that these articles were adversarial to my opinions. Iran is attempting to cover up thier labors with rhetoric. the reason it seems to be unreasonably biased in their favor is because it is. the media can report on what is said and compare with what others have said. both articles lead me to the conclusion that iran is buying time and that something needs to be done. How could i blame reuters and the post for biased journalism if, without digging too deeply, i came to the exact opposite opinion that they were putting attempting to convince me of?

again, i do believe that journalists can occasionally breach their positions and say baised as hell things, but i do not see it here (in this instance - the post and reuters are notorious for biased drivel). am i missing something?

IrishArmenian
08-24-2006, 05:41
Not good for me. Russia, Iran and Armenia are in an alliance. Iran is just screwing over its allies. But as soon as it gets into the Islam is superior thing, I know that Russia and We will back out as we are both Christian Nations.