Perspectives on Media

For my perspectives of the media, I chose to look at an article about Iran’s plans to expand its nuclear activities as well as its latest breakthrough. This article was covered by the Los Angeles Times and for the Arabic perspective, by Al Jazeera.net. Al Jazeera is a sub-company of Al Jazeera English, a 24 hour English-language news and current affairs channel that is headquartered in Doha, Qatar. Both articles related that Iran had announced new advances in its nuclear technology with two new devices that would enrich uranium. Iran also was inaugurating a plant that would produce fuel pellets for a heavy-water reactor. Although both articles dealt with the same subject matter, what is unique to note was the portrayal of Iran in the Western media as opposed to the more objective reporting of Al Jazeera. This paper seeks to analyze both articles in a bid to reflect the bias of Western media towards the Middle East and the counter depiction of the Middle East about itself.
From the titles of the articles, one can predict the differences in perspectives that each writer is going to bring. The Los Angeles Times headline reads “Iran touts nuclear technology gains” The term “tout” would suggest that Iran is being brazen in its publicity of its nuclear breakthrough. On the other hand Al Jazeera.net’s headline reads “Iran 'open to nuclear talks'” In this case, there is a ring of optimism in the picture drawn by the Middle Eastern headline. It seemed to present Iran as a country that is willing to cooperate with all those concerned about its nuclear activities.
As one begins to read the article by the Los Angeles Times one is faced with terms such as Iran is “trumpeting” its achievements which would suggest that Iran has a boastful attitude. Granted this would be perfectly permissible if Iran did decide to boast about it nuclear activities, after all it is their achievement, but the tone of the Los Angeles was almost disapproving. The article goes on to relay details of the ceremony that Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had held to mark these developments however it then digresses for about two thirds of the entire article into an analysis of how the West suspects Iran of intending to eventually produce weapons. Now this is a concern that has been ongoing for years now therefore to be fair to the Los Angeles Times, it was bound to crop up in any discussion of Iran and nuclear technology. Even so the reporter declares that “Iran's buildup of nuclear technology infrastructure, without explicitly pursuing weapons, keeps its unnerved regional rivals and the West guessing about its capabilities and intentions, a strategy that some analysts say could serve as a deterrent to foreign military action.” Such as a statement would suggest that Iran has a deliberate plot that is to keep the West nervous and uncertain while it sneaks about increasing its infrastructure.
One statement quoted within the Los Angeles article is that of Paul Kerr, an arms control expert at the Congressional Research Service. According to Kerr "The reactor is under safeguard. They can't [create weapons-grade plutonium] without getting caught" This version of Western perspective reflects and apparent attitude of suspicion that is embodied in the use of the phrase “without getting caught”. It also doesn’t help that this phrase brings back images of Iran sneaking about behind the West’s back. This statement could even be taken to be an expectation by the West that Iran will be caught of which that would mean as far as the West is concerned Iran is guilty until proven innocent.
I was especially curious about the writers of this article from the Los Angeles Times, Borzou Daragahi and Ramin Mostaghim, seeing as it was that both had names that could be assumed to be Arabic or at least from the Middle East. Because of this I wondered why they would write in a voice so reminiscent of Westerners. Though I failed to find much about Ramin it turned out that Borzou was actually born in Iran but was raised in Chicago and New York City. This and the fact that his bread is buttered by the Western media would explain the differences between his writing and that reflected in the Al Jazeera article.
As far as the Al Jazeera article is concerned it actually was concerned more with the Iranian President’s speech to allay Western leaders’ fears over its nuclear developments as well as the US’ response to this speech. This was a stark difference from the Los Angeles Times that had paid more tribute to the suspicion of guilt itself. According to Al Jazeera.net “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he was open to negotiations based on "justice and respect".” The article goes on to say that Mahmoud accused the West of using the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a "mask of peace to confront [Iran] and stop its advancement" The picture painted this far in the article would be that of a cooperating Iran that is being hindered by Western finger-pointing and intrusions. I am skeptical about the total innocence of Iran as this article would have it seem, just as I am undecided over its future nuclear plans, what is most important to remember for everyone concerned in Iran’s matters, is that nothing has been proven of all these allegations of weapon manufacturing. Therefore should the Iranian President be open to talks then it is up to the rest of the world to take it at face value and accept the olive branch for what it is.
The second half of the Al Jazeera article is in regards to the US’ response to the nuclear developments as well as the Iranian President’s accusations. US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is quoted to have said "We don't know what to believe about the Iranian programme. We've heard many different assessments and claims over a number of years." One would applaud the diplomacy of Hillary in not resorting to an outright declaration that Iran is guilty of plans for manufacturing weapons, something that other leaders have done. On the other hand one must note that Hillary did not negate these allegations either instead of extending the solidarity and goodwill that should exist between countries that are at peace with each other.
The Al Jazeera article rounds up in an analysis of how the speech by the Iranian President could be interpreted to have been political posturing in preparation for the next presidential elections. Between this article and the Los Angeles Times one I would say that I prefer to have read the AL Jazeera one primarily because it was more objective. While the Los Angeles Times alluded to boastfulness in Iran’s nuclear announcement as well as highlighted the opinions of those that would suspect Iran, the Al Jazeera article limited itself to just the Iranian President’s announcement and West’s response to it. For me this was valuable in that it was not an imposition of another’s opinions that would guide me in what to think over Iran’s nuclear developments, rather I could formulate my own opinions. Both articles proved to me what I saw as the bias of the West reflected in its media thereby further compounding upon people’s already misguided notions.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/04/200949151820306693.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-nuclear10-2009apr10,0,6613541.story