Politics

Iranian Media Claims Victory

Who cares?

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

On Monday afternoon, I was asked to do a radio interview reacting to the visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Columbia University earlier in the day. The host asked if I thought that the Iranian media—in the face of evidence to the contrary—would simply splice together clips of Ahmadinejad’s applause lines and claim victory in the debate. I though that was a pretty safe bet to make, and that the state-run Iranian media would undoubtedly deny its listeners the truth: that the crowd actually laughed at the ridiculous pronouncements he made, and Columbia president Bollinger roasted him over a spit in his opening remarks. I also said that it didn’t matter what the Iranian media said.

It’s important to remember that despite periodic crackdowns on satellite dishes and Internet search engines, Iranians are hardly beholden to the state media for all of their news. Satellite dishes, while officially illegal, have sprouted up all over the country, (check out this picture), beaming in CNN, Fox, the BBC and other Western news channels. And as Nikki R. Keddie tells us in her book “Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution,” by late 2005 it was estimated that there were between 40,000 and 110,000 active Persian-language blogs in Iran. Obviously, these blogs are not all political—far from it, I’m sure—but the number speaks to the fact that plenty of information bounces around Iran that doesn’t come from the mouth of a state spokesman, as Mariah Blake noted in CJR back in 2004.

Aside from all that, when I said that it didn’t matter that Iranian television was essentially lying about Ahmadinejad’s visit, my larger point was that Bollinger’s remarks weren’t aimed at an Iranian audience, anyway. Ahmadinejad is already a hugely unpopular figure in Iran, as Azadeh Moaveni reported in Time this past August, and any love he gets from Iranian TV probably isn’t going to change that. Rather, Bollinger’s remarks were geared for domestic consumption, meant to be chewed over here and in Europe, in order to not let anyone forget what kind of regime we’re dealing with in Tehran. It also should be said that Bollinger’s remarks were also designed to appease his many critics here in the states, not just over the Ahmadinejad speech but over the other incidents where Jews and Muslims have clashed at Columbia in recent years. Like Bollinger though, Ahmadinejad’s remarks were aimed at American citizens, in order to try and make himself look like an intelligent, fair-minded guy. Time’s Richard Stengel said as much this morning, noting that every year during the U.N. General Assembly in New York, Ahmadinejad “hones his performance for multiple audiences: in this case, the journalists and academics who can filter his speech and ideas for a wider American audience.”

Well, he failed. Actually, let me rephrase that. He got his message out there, but his ideas are so convoluted, so wrongheaded, so pathetic, that the American media recoiled in revulsion, in the process proving those who criticized Bollinger’s decision to invite Ahmadinejad shortsighted. What better way to combat idiocy than by giving it a forum to publicly implode?

Given all this, The New York Times runs a piece this morning reporting that—surprise!—the Iranian media is doing exactly what we knew they would do, spinning the Columbia visit as a win for Ahmadinejad:

Commentary, interviews and video broadcast in Iran of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia on Monday depicted a resolute leader who overcame an ambush of personal insults to present his views on topics like the Holocaust, Israel, the Palestinians and nuclear weapons, views that were described as having been well received by the audience…The program repeated scenes that showed the audience cheering Mr. Ahmadinejad, suggesting that a lot of the audience was made up of his supporters.

I’ll say it again: it doesn’t matter. Iranians are smart enough to know that their media is a government production. Nowhere is this shown more forcefully than in a September 2006 article in Der Spiegel, which shows just how little regard Iranians have for the state run television stations. What matters is how the media of the free world reacted, which shows, as Josh Marshall wrote yesterday, “that Ahmadinejad was diminished by yesterday’s events, not elevated. And America seemed bigger for not having cowered before him, as so many wanted to.”

CJR

If you enjoy this kind of press criticism please consider a subscription to our magazine, Columbia Journalism Review—a deal via the Web site at $19.95.

To subscribe, to give CJR as a gift, to renew, or to check student and CJR in the Classroom rates, click here.

Comments

padikiller

Thu 27 Sep 2007 09:41 PM

McLearyland - 1939

On Monday afternoon, I was asked to do a radio interview reacting to the visit by GERMAN FUHRER ADOLF HITLER to Columbia University earlier in the day. The host asked if I thought that the GERMAN media—in the face of evidence to the contrary—would simply splice together clips of Hitler’s applause lines and claim victory in the debate. I though that was a pretty safe bet to make, and that the state-run GERMAN media would undoubtedly deny its listeners the truth: that the crowd actually laughed at the ridiculous pronouncements he made, and Columbia president Bollinger roasted him over a spit in his opening remarks. I also said that it didn’t matter what the GERMAN media said.

padikiller can't fight off the sarcasm

Yeah...

What difference does propaganda make to fascist regimes?

What a crock of apologetic crap!...

Columbia would sooner set it's campus ablaze than to provide a "free speech forum" for a white supremecist or a gun rights advocate...

But a looney, Islamofascist whack job who has called for the destruction of Israel and America... Who advocates KILLING homosexuals.... Who INSISTS on the subjogation of women...

Now THIS guy gets a great big hug from the daft Columbia moonbats...

FurGaia

Thu 27 Sep 2007 10:36 PM

Iranians may not like Ahmadinejad personally, but they might not have appreciated having their president bullied either, as evidenced here.

AhmNee

Fri 28 Sep 2007 12:23 PM

Padi, you obviously haven't read much on his visit to Columbia. It was hardly a free speech forum. More of a ambush. Like it or not white supremacists or gun rights advocates aren't world leaders.

I don't know what Columbia was hoping to get out of their invitation to Ahmadinejad. I think they managed to make us look like the arrogant jerks a good chunk of the world seems to think we are already.

padikiller

Fri 28 Sep 2007 07:40 PM

Giving an open mike to a "world leader" who espouses the subjugation of women... The execution of homosexuals... The destruction of Israel and the United States...

Is just inexcusable.

PERIOD.

It would be a snowy day in Hell before Columbia offered such an invitation to Nicolas Sarkozy, John Howard or Shimon Peres.

AhmNee

Fri 28 Sep 2007 11:38 PM

Yes, because if you give an open mic to people who's views aren't your own, your mind can be warped and you'll start believing what they say. It's not like you have free will or the ability to reason or even your own values.

That's why we don't tell our children about sex. That way they won't do it ...

That's why we shouldn't report murders or anything on the news ... what if it gives people ideas. They won't be able to help themselves. It will be chaos, I tell you ...

padikiller

Sat 29 Sep 2007 08:49 AM

One can't help but notice that AhmNee isn't dealing with the reality here... Namely that his "world leader" advocates executing homosexuals, oppressing women, and killing Jews.

Instead, he claims that we must respect this evil bastard's hate because his "views" aren't "our own"...

This kind of stupidity is typical of the thinking on the left side of the political spectrum.

AhmNee

Sat 29 Sep 2007 12:01 PM

Unfortunately, there are Americans that still feel that way. And ignoring it hasn't made the problem go away. Thing is, you're not going to change things by stuffing the problem under a rock.

See, the ideal of freedom for everyone means that everyone should enjoy the freedoms we have. Not just Americans.

Freedom includes the free expression of speech and ideas. No matter what you think of his beliefs you should respect his freedom to say them. If you don't agree with him and you think your idea is better then you should find your voice and present that better idea.

I don't believe that Ahmadinejad should have an open mic. I believe EVERYONE should. I think we could have accomplished a lot more by letting the man say what he had to say and then presenting our own ideas and views on the topics he wished to discuss and let people decide which is better. Better to expose hate and lies to the light of day so that others can see them for what they are than to put them away in the shadows where they can quietly grow and get stronger out of sight.

padikiller

Sat 29 Sep 2007 12:25 PM

It is one thing to respect a man's right to hold a hateful, murderous, unenlightened, racist, misogynistic, and generally intolerant ideology...

It is another thing to give a man a platform to propound his hateful views, especially when he will use the opportunity politically to consolidate power...

Evil people need to be marginalized.

It is not only impractical and absurd to suggest that "everyone" be invited to voice hateful rhetoric in protected forums, it is also cleary dangerous to do so.

Hate, whether from the right or the left, should not be subsidized, especially not in the one-sided, politically biased, manner that Columbia did so.

Idiots like Ahmadinejad should not be silenced in our free society, but they shouldn't be given soapboxes either.

AhmNee

Tue 2 Oct 2007 12:41 PM

Regardless if we believe that a forum like the one held at Columbia could have had any redeeming value if handled correctly, I think we both agree that the event was a complete debacle.