Soccer Dad: Graham vs. thatcher rethought

June 21, 2006

Graham vs. thatcher rethought

Last week Deborah Howell defended Karl Vick's A man of the people's needs and wants

That belief, far more than anything Ahmadinejad has said about nuclear power or the Holocaust, defines Iran's energetic president for the people who elected him almost a year ago, as well as the legions he appears to have won over since taking office in August. If his image in the West is that of a banty radical dangerously out of touch with reality -- "a psychopath of the worst kind," in the words of Israel's prime minister -- the prevailing impression in Iran is precisely the opposite.
...
But Ahmadinejad's government has delivered none of the widely predicted crackdowns on social behavior. Iranians remain free to drink, party and generally do as they please behind closed doors. In public, young couples can still canoodle lightly on the street, and young women stretch the definition of "Islamic dress" with form-fitting outerwear.
...
To many Iranians, the tough talk is simply that. Among a population with both the pride of the Persian empire and a long history of defensive wars, Ahmadinejad's defiance is regarded as welcome and routine. "These kinds of words have to be used," said Azar Mahdavi, 20, behind the counter of a children's boutique. "You have to show that you're a strong man."

by writing

One reader called the Iranian president "a monster" and wrote: "Ahmadinejad is publicly proclaiming his goals, and rallying support around the world for plans that make Hitler seem tame, and you can't see past the 'charisma' to his true evil intent to destroy Israel and promote global jihad?"

The Post has run dozens of stories about the rise of Ahmadinejad, and most have been filled with comments quite critical of the Iranian president, including a remark by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that he is "a psychopath of the worst kind."

It's important for readers to know why Iranians elected Ahmadinejad and how ordinary citizens view him. It reveals a lot about what the United States is up against in its diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Perhaps there was a time to explain Ahmadinejad's appeal, but the day that the Vick article appeared in the Washington Post, Gateway Pundit was covering riots in Iran. These were "cartoon" riots, that strangely escaped the noticed of the Western media. But Gateway Pundit provided many details.

For Howell's explanation to be convincing there can't have been any other significant news from Iran at the time that the profile. But there was and it showed that Ahmadinejad was willing to repress - contradicting the second quoted paragraph above - and that his tough talk wasn't merely posturing - contradicting the third paragraph. Presenting a "kinder gentler" Ahmadinejad when it did the Washington Post was engaged in apologetics not journalism.

I bring this example up to get back to something I blogged about last week. Deciding what to and what not to publish is one of the most difficult jobs of the media. Clearly in the case of Iran right now the Washington Post has chosen to give a free pass to its extreme leader. International pressure that may have followed more sxtensive coverage of the protests could have forced the regime to scale back the use of force. But the Post (and other members of the MSM) instead chose to encourage the leaders of the regime.

But what about the question of covering terrorism? In a presentation some 20 years ago, the late publisher of the Washington Post defended the coverage of terrorism in these terms

I disagree. I am against any government-imposed restrictions on the free flow of information about terrorist acts. Instead, I am in favor of as full and complete coverage of terrorism by the media as is possible. Here are my reasons:

Terrorist acts are impossible to ignore. They are simply too big a story to pass unobserved. If the media did not report them, rumor would abound. And rumors can do much to enflame and worsen a crisis.

There is no compelling evidence that terrorist attacks would cease if the media stopped covering them. On the contrary, terrorism specialists I have consulted believe the terrorists would only increase the number, scope and intensity of their attacks if we tried to ignore them.

Surely if she had consulted other experts she would have gotten a different answer. Recently there was a study that concluded that, indeed, coverage of terror leads to more terror (and the study was reported on Graham's newspaper the Washington Post.)

But as is the tendency of those in her business, Graham presents the choice between freedom and government control. So it was necessary for her to show not only that she preferred freedom but that it really caused no harm either. Her paper's role in safeguarding freedom imposes no cost on society.

But thinking back on the history of the PLO, it's hard to come to the same conclusion. Surely media coverage made the PLO successful and helped transform a terrorist organization into a terrorist organization with territory. The PLO committed its terror and the media reported on the terror and the PLO's "legitimate" claims. With the latter providing cover for the former the media played a large role in legitimizing the PLO while failing to publicize the more repugnant aspects of the PLO. Had the media covered PLO terror in a negative light the PLO would not have been so successful. But the media must accept full blame for legitimizing an unreformed terror organization.

(The Washington Post carried an especially egregious such example. In 1982, during the Lebanon war, Israel correspondent Edward Cody wrote a tribute to one of the PLO commanders - a terrorist - who was killed by Israel.

UPDATE: From Soldier or Terrorist by Edward Cody, The Washington Post July 7, 1982

The Army communique was matter-of-fact: Israeli troops on patrol in southern Lebanon had discovered the hiding place of two "terrorists" in a house near Sidon and killed them both. There were no Israeli casualties.

One of the "terrorists," the communique added, was the Tyre region commander for Fatah, the leading Palestinian guerrilla group, and had participated in training and preparations for a number of operations against Israel including the coastal road assault of 1978 in which more than 30 Israelis were killed.

He was identified as Azmeh Seghaiyer, whom I had known since 1975 in the early days of the Lebanese civil war. In repeated contacts with Azmeh during the past seven years--in those Dodge City days and most recently in Tyre a few weeks before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon--I always thought of him as an honorable military officer in the closest thing the Palestinians had to an army.

Is it surprising the news coverage of terrorism leads to more terror?)

Katharine Graham was responding in part to statements made by Lady Thatcher. Lady Thatcher said at the time

Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.

Though Mrs. Graham was trying to spin this as a wish for government control of the press, it was a plea for responsibility on the part of the media. It was a responsibility that the media did not display 20 years ago.

And if the events in Iran are any indication, they still have not learned it. Coddling terrorists and tyrants only encourages them. Attacking democracies unfairly only weakens them. The irony, of course, is that the free press that flourishes in the latter cannot exist in the former. But it seems that the media is lot more understanding of the tyrants and terrorists.

Technorati tags: Media Bias, Iran, PLO, Israel.