The Western world is hungry for news about the aftermath of Iran’s disputed presidential election. But reporters on the ground in Tehran are severely limited by government restrictions on their movement and access.
Some news outlets are holding out for in-depth stories from their international correspondents. Others, feeling the pressure of time, are turning to Twitter and other instant mediums for information that their reporters on the ground cannot get—or cannot get, verify, and contextualize quickly enough for a frantic news cycle.
Many readers are turning to blogs and Twitter as alternative sources of information. But, for better or for worse, the legacy media is still driving the master narrative. So, as a news consumer, when it comes to the situation in Iran, what do you want the media to be telling you that it is not? What information is the media flooding you with that you don’t feel the need to know? In short: What are you looking to the media for on Iran?
I have been talking to a work colleague from Iran (I live in Australia) about the situation and he pointed out something that no-one in the media has mentioned. The police generally come from the poor rural areas (where the vote was strongly for the President) and the rich well-educated in Tehran who support Mousavi, -- the protestors. Often, he suggested,the violence towards the protestors was more a 'that rich kid doesn't know how good he's got it" rather than powerfully politically motivated.
And the reality is it is the rich sophisticated kids in the city who have access to the iphones and twitter, who can get their message out, not the poor rural people.
That made me think that the media should nvestigate how the backgrounds of the police and the militia compared to that of the protestors might explain their support of the different sides. And maybe get out of Tehran and see what the rest of this massive country thinks.
Just a thought.
#1 Posted by Mary, CJR on Wed 17 Jun 2009 at 09:56 PM
I was somewhat disturbed by the video being continuously shown on CNN on Saturday evening. It was a dark, poorly shot video with various shouts and occasional gunfire. In short, there was no way anyone could really understand what was going on.
Yet the CNN anchor gave a 3 minute prelude to the 'shocking' video which was 'terrifying' and yet gave the weak caveat that they have absolutely no idea what is going on between whom.
Is it the role of television news to roll unedited, unexplained, unintelligible cell phone video of a situation of which they know nothing? And then to trump it up into a shocking and terrifying example of the chaotic situation in Iran? It could've just as easily been a domestic dispute as a 'home invasion by Revolutionary Guard?'
The question mark on the end of the statement doesn't absolve CNN in the least. If you don't know, you don't know.
#2 Posted by Xavier, CJR on Mon 22 Jun 2009 at 02:21 PM