peacefare.net

Fool me twice, shame on me

The discussion Monday at the Wilson Center of “The Media and Iran’s Nuclear Program:  An Analysis of US and UK Coverage, 2009-12” began with the familiar litany of complaints about the media’s pre-Iraq war coverage:  lack of critical analysis, an over reliance on White House sources, lack of precise wording and a narrow pre-war context. Are we falling into the same trap with Iran?

The panel discussed a new report  from the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland.   Co-author Jonas Siegel laid out the reports major findings:

1. The media’s coverage of the Iranian nuclear program lacks context and diversity of sources.
   Newspapers relied heavily on government officials. A narrow range of sources leads to a narrow set of policy options. Alternative approaches to conflict resolution are often overlooked. The media ignore the wider context of the crisis and rarely discusses Iran’s domestic politics or security needs. Panelist John Steinbruner of the University of Maryland agreed that the media ignores the obvious diplomatic solution of allowing Iran to enrich uranium under international supervision. Iran has good reason to feel threatened, he added, and exercise of military options would further solidify Iran’s resolve in pursuing a nuclear program.
2. The media use imprecise language and hawkish rhetoric.  The most common terms used on average in press coverage of Iran are “nuclear program” and “nuclear weapon.”  This usage affects the reader’s assumptions and essentially jumps to the conclusion that Iran wants or already has a nuclear weapon.
3. The media increasingly use commentary as the story, instead of in-depth journalism.  The majority of coverage on Iran consisted of “he said, she said” stories about policy makers. News articles increasingly covered the nuclear debate instead of the nuclear issues, emphasizing stories about US or Israeli reactions to Iran and the implementation of sanctions.
4. The media place the burden of resolution in Iran.  “Iran needs to accept…” was a staple line in news articles. The media rarely discusses compromise from the American side and most often uses “negotiations” as code for Iranian concessions to US demands.  Policy makers rely on news coverage for information on foreign affairs. Questions of Iran’s motives, intentions and capabilities should be at the center of the media’s coverage, but they are worryingly absent.

Panelist Walter Pincus of the Washington Post was critical of the report.  He thought the authors had shown their own bias toward the issues while also giving their prescription for how the press should act. Every newspaper need not provide deep coverage of an issue. The press should represent one side of a discussion and leave it to the citizen to reach an informed conclusion. Commentary from the audience reflected Pincus’ point:  “How can the media be held to such a high standard when dealing with an issue like Iran that no one can get to the truth of?”

Steinbruner concluded with a general point. This report is an indication that our discussion of Iran’s nuclear program is defective and prone to political mis-coverage. Sensationalist and selective reporting has far reaching and damaging repercussions. He ended saying, “that’s not really who we are, and in this situation, that’s not how we want to be.”