It’s the dog days of August and an article appears on top of Drudge: US to Designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as Terrorists by Robin Wright. Our government is planning to do this so that the notorious Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) who have been associated with just about every nefarious deed out of Khomeinist Iran since the 1979 revolution is cut off from some of their funding. Sounds good to me.
But I’m not so sure it sounds so good to Robin Wright of the Washington Post. Everyone knows now how the conventional “objective” news article is structured,with the supposedly neutral reporter revealing his/her tilt by the choice of closing material, so here it is:
The administration’s move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. “It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue,” said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. “It would tie an end to Iran’s nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach.”
Such sanctions can only work alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added. “Sanctions can serve as a prod but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse,” he said. “All of us want to back Iran into a corner but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran’s elite that there’s no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change.”
Hmmm… in other words, no sanctions, or not these sanctions, saith the Post. Or Wright.
Let’s leave aside for the moment Cirincione’s peculiar logic since negotiations with Iran over nuclear issues have gone on literally for years to absolutely no avail. Why should they succeed now? Cirincione isn’t saying. (I’ll wager because he can’t.)
What interests me here is how the article came to be. The prose is sprinkled with the usual journo-blather: “according to US officials… sources said… analysts said,” etc. But which officials and which sources and which analysts, nadie sabe. Meaning, I write what I want to write. Or perhaps I should say I Wright what I Wright. That’s not to say this is wrong or it’s not happening but my best guess is that someone at the State Department leaked this to the reporter because he/she knew the reporter would be cooperative,be the right mouthpiece. And he/she was correct. That’s modern journalism. Or perhaps more accurately, “Scoop” lives.
PJM Home
9 Comments
1. Barry Dauphin:Oh why doesn’t she just ask what Joe Wilson thinks.
Aug 14, 2007 - 8:26 pm 2. NOTEMAN:As an amateur student of the Middle East, I can tell you that Robin Wright, once a noteworthy scholar of the region, went native years ago. Nothing she has written since 9/11 is valid…she is one the side of the terrorists.
Aug 14, 2007 - 11:38 pm 3. markus:In quoting the opinion of Cirincione, the paper is not endorsing his views, anymore than quoting Bolton in opposition to current attempt to work w/ North Korea on a nuclear agreement shows evidence of support for the neocon position. Cirincione, or at least the organization he works for, can be said to be a part of the “Democratic Party foreign policy establishment.” Since many of these peole may actually be in our next administration, wouldn’t it be good for voters to know what they are thinking now? What you really seem to be upset about is a lack of editorializing (in line with your own views) within the article itself.
Also, why shouldn’t reporters function as a “mouthpiece” for rival sides of pllicy debates? In a democratic society, shouldn’t such disputes be argued over openly?
Aug 15, 2007 - 5:46 am 4. Lem:State seems to do diplomacy as if they were on a biology expedition.
The theory being we shouldn’t be afraid because ‘in reality’ Iran is more afraid of us.
But then we must ask if they are ‘really’ more afraid of us, why is Iran’s behavior so erratic and unpredictable?
Aug 15, 2007 - 6:30 am 5. LarryD:markus: why shouldn’t reporters function as a “mouthpiece” for rival sides of policy debates?
A) Because they do a dammed poor job of it.
B) Because they rarely act as the mouthpiece for more than one side (I speak not just of individual reporters, but the MSM generally).
C) Because they keep telling us they’re just objective reporters.
We’d get a much better debate (or discussion) with a forum which cut out the middlemen and had people such as Cirincione directly saying their piece in public. Who knows what the reporters are leaving out; or putting in, for that matter?
While debate by leak is legal, it’s dammed poor quality. I’d much prefer these “unnamed officials” register with a blog, so they had a consistent id, and argue without reporters filtering them.
Aug 15, 2007 - 7:21 am 6. soccerdad:The headline to the article “Iranian Unit to Be Labeled ‘Terrorist’” tells you all you need to know about the Post and Wright. Pay attention to MSM and you’ll often see this sort of thing. “Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by the Bush administration …” It’s never “Hamas which fits the legal definition of terrorist organization.” The passive voice and the use of verbs like “considered” or “labeled” effectively passes judgment on the considerer or the labeler while remaining neutral about the organization.
Aug 15, 2007 - 7:25 am 7. markus:Larry D — This article strikes me as informative and objective. I particularly appreciate the anonymous quotes, all of which are from Bush administration officials in support of the policy shift. Their anonymity encourages them to speak much more candidly about the need for this change.
I would be interested in knowing just what would make this a better article. Removing Cirincione’s comments? Removing the unattributed comments in support of designating the Council as a terrorist outfit?
Interesting, how Roger rails one day about myopeia of ideologues, while the next day criticizing a reporter for being insufficiently IDEOLOGICAL.
Aug 15, 2007 - 10:54 am 8. Barbara Skolaut:“The administration’s move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said.”
Oh, ferchrissakes - we’ve had what, 30 years of “diplomacy” with these nutcases to absolutely NO avail (except the entertainment of Iran’s mullahs).
I know it will come as a shock to the idiots at Foggy Bottem, but the only “diplomacy” some people/countries understand and respond to is overwhelming force. They don’t respect anyone who can’t - or won’t - kick their collective asses.
Aug 15, 2007 - 4:47 pm 9. Gary Rosen:“This article strikes me as informative and objective. I particularly appreciate the anonymous quotes”
… that agree with markus’ preconceived opinions. Just the sort of dishonest comment you’d expect from this creep. And it’s hardly surprising that this vicious Jew-baiter is opposed to any action against the virulently antisemitic, Holocaust-denying Iranian regime.
Aug 17, 2007 - 1:10 am