Iran: How the "New Media" Tore Down the Gates of the "Mainstream"

The Latest from Iran (24 July): Waiting for the Next Move

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

This afternoon, the headlines have blared out about a sudden crisis within the Iranian regime: CNN "Iran's supreme leader tells Ahmadinejad to dump deputy"; Reuters "Iran supreme leader wants vice president sacked"; BBC English "Iranian leader 'orders dismissal'". All the reports accurately summarise the story, in line with our updates today, that the Supreme Leader has sent a letter to President Ahmadinejad demanding the removal of the First Vice President Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai.

There's only one catch: all these news outlets are reporting about an event that took place on Tuesday. From our update at 1600 GMT that day:

According to Parleman News, the Supreme Leader ordered President Ahmadinejad to remove his choice as Vice President, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, who is also the father of Ahmadinejad’s daughter-in-law: “Without any delay, the dismissal order or Mashaei’s resignation must be announced by the President.”

OK, but what's the big deal? Better late than never to the story, right?

Well, from a political point of view, the problem with the sudden appearance of the stories is that they give a simple portrayal of a sudden dispute between Ayatollah Khamenei and the President. The true story is that the letter was sent to Ahmadinejad privately but that sources with an interest in the battle quickly leaked the news to Iranian newspapers. For the rest of Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, as we've been noting on EA, there has been manoeuvring and clashing between the Supreme Leader's camp, the President's supporters, and other "conservative" factions. The significance of today is that Khamenei has raised the stakes once more by allowing the letter to go public.

None of that context, and thus analysis, is possible with the "out of the blue" narrative of the mainstream media. For example, none of the stories note that Ahmadinejad threw Khamenei's letter back at the Supreme Leader later on Tuesday, with the President declaring that he was standing by Rahim-Mashai. Whereas CNN, BBC, etc. are at the starting gate on this story, the actual dispute is already halfway around the track.

From a media point of view, the lesson seems to go beyond the stories EA has been running about the place of "new media" in this crisis and those to come. This is no longer a question of who is more reliable because the mainstream media aren't necessarily even in the competition.

In this case, the mainstream media only "found" the story when one of the news services (I suspect, though am not sure, that it was Reuters) lifted the news from Iranian state television and news agencies. Of course, none of the mainstream outlets have correspondents in Iran, given the Government's restrictions, but --- more importantly in this case --- it appears that none of them have reporters reading the Iranian press, much of which is not run by State agencies but is linked to political factions. The story on Parleman News apparently never made it on the radar of CNN, BBC, etc. (What's more, it appears that the mainstream outlets are not even keeping an eye on English-language websites covering Iran. The Parleman News report showed up quickly on the site of the National Iranian American Council.)

In contrast, "new media" like Enduring America or the "Green Brief" of Anonymous Iran, as well as bloggers like Nico Pitney at The Huffington Post, rely upon a web of sources who have sent in or analysed material from across not only the Iranian press but regional media and websites. The point about Twitter and other devices such as Google Reader, from my perspective, is that has made this web possible. Whereas the hardest-working journalist might be able to monitor only a handful of sources even a few years ago, now dozens quickly come into play. Thus the disadvantage for most of the new media  --- namely that we don't have any money for full-time staff --- becomes a marked advantage: we don't have to rely on a Reuters to put out the story before we'll write and publish.

This is no longer a matter of "to Twitter or not to Twitter". The mainstream news services are no longer the gatekeepers of the stories because they are not at the gates. The sharpest, up-to-date coverage is coming from a new network of citizen journalists, activists, and even readers who are quick to pass on important breaking stories. It is that network that has presented the post-election Iran crisis as a continuing story, with ripples and fluctuations, rather than the mainstream media's sudden ups and downs of "the Green Movement is here"; "the Green Movement is dead"; "the Green Movement is back". And, now that the story is no longer of the Government v. the Movement but of tensions and shifts within the Government and regime, it is that network that will be the daily port of call to find out what is happening and what may happen.

Because when the gates are down, the view is less, not more, restricted.

Getting Iran (Loudly) Wrong: Posturing for Mr Ahmadinejad and Mr Hitchens

The Latest from Iran (10 July): What Next?

NEW Iran: How Big Were the 18 Tir Protests?
The Latest from Iran (18 Tir/9 July): Day of Reckoning?
LATEST Video: The 18 Tir Protests (9 July)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

A couple of fine examples of how to wedge events in Iran into personal and political prejudices and agendas. In Asia Times Online, Mahan Abedin charts "The Rise and Rise of Ahmadinejad" with the claim:

[He is] the most formidable leader of a faction that has incrementally broadened and deepened the scope of its reach and influence within the regime to the point where it is now completely dominant. Factional politics in the Islamic Republic - as we know it - has collapsed....All the other factions, particularly the once-powerful Islamic left, are in complete disarray. Their leaders have been exposed as losers and their supporters have been left demoralized by the entire state machinery's acquiescence in the final victory of the Islamic right.

To call this analysis "quirky", in light of Ahmadinejad's political floundering in the last three weeks would be generous. A less charitable reading would be that Abedin wants to wipe out any alternative to the President: "The biggest loser of all is former prime minister Mousavi....Another great loser is former president and arch-oligarch Rafsanjani....Many other core establishment figures, including losing presidential contender Mehdi Karroubi and former Majlis (parliament) speaker Nategh Nouri, are expected to be edged out."

Which means that, presto magico!, Ahmadinejad stands atop "a new consensus" in Iran: "While the contours of a broader political alliance have still to be worked out, there are indications that at the grassroots level at least a substantial number of Islamic left personalities and activists are willing to fall behind Ahmadinejad and accept the public hegemony of the Islamic right."

Meanwhile, swerving violently from the other direction, Christopher Hitchens in Salon finally finds the moment to vindicate his 7-year "liberation of Iraq" shout-out by linking it to the "liberation of Iran". Unfortunately, that moment is based on the wildly inaccurate New York Times story of 5 July that "the most important clerical group" in Iran had come out against the regime:

So it is very hard to overstate the significance of the statement made last Saturday by the Association of Teachers and Researchers of Qum, a much-respected source of religious rulings, which has in effect come right out with it and said that the recent farcical and prearranged plebiscite in the country was just that: a sham event. (In this, the clerics of Qum are a lot more clear-eyed than many American "experts" on Iranian public opinion, who were busy until recently writing about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the rough-hewn man of the people.)

This shaky pretext self-justifies Hitchens in the ignorance of every internal dynamic in Iran, apart from Ayatollah Khomeini's "good" grandon Sayeed, in favour of an Iraqi platform:

Did the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, and the subsequent holding of competitive elections in which many rival Iraqi Shiite parties took part, have any germinal influence on the astonishing events in Iran? Certainly when I interviewed Sayeed Khomeini in Qum some years ago, where he spoke openly about "the liberation of Iraq," he seemed to hope and believe that the example would spread. One swallow does not make a summer. But consider this: Many Iranians go as religious pilgrims to the holy sites of Najaf and Kerbala in southern Iraq. They have seen the way in which national and local elections have been held, more or less fairly and openly, with different Iraqi Shiite parties having to bid for votes (and with those parties aligned with Iran's regime doing less and less well). They have seen an often turbulent Iraqi Parliament holding genuine debates that are reported with reasonable fairness in the Iraqi media. Meanwhile, an Iranian mullah caste that classifies its own people as children who are mere wards of the state puts on a "let's pretend" election and even then tries to fix the outcome. Iranians by no means like to take their tune from Arabs—perhaps least of all from Iraqis—but watching something like the real thing next door may well have increased the appetite for the genuine article in Iran itself.

The silver lining in this cloud of promoting, posturing and preening analysis is that it's much easier to expose by going to the real "experts" in this story, the folks getting information out of Iran by any means necessary. So, farewell, "Rise and Rise of Ahmadinejad". Bye bye, Christopher. Hello, new media.

Audio on Hiding Gaza, Hiding Israel: The Jailing of Cynthia McKinney (and 20 Others)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

(An audio interview with Huwaida Arraf of the Free Gaza Movement, one of two activists released, and with Mairead Corrigan Maguire, who is still in jail, follows the opening paragraphs of the story.)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkPvzSZRuDo[/youtube]

On Tuesday, the news broke on Twitter: a freighter, Spirit of Humanity, carrying three tons of medical supplies, cement, olive trees, and children's toys for Gaza, had been intercepted and boarded by Israeli naval personnel. Twenty-one passengers, including former US Congressman Cynthia McKinney, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire, and activists from Britain, Ireland, Bahrain, and Jamaica were detained. The Israeli Foreign Ministry said, "They will be released as soon as they are checked." However, McKinney, Maguire, and 17 others remain in custory because they refuse to sign a deportation order that says they were "trespassing" in Israeli territorial waters.

As of Friday morning, here is how many column inches The Washington Post has given to the story: 0

(The Post website has a short account on Tuesday from the Associated Press but that never made it into print.)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj5YLhMz_pI[/youtube]

And here is the attention span of The New York Times: 3 sentences, tucked away at the bottom of a story today on the Amnesty International report on "war crimes" in the Gaza War of December-January.

(The three sentences are from a longer story on the Times website, but that is not in "Today's Paper". It can only be found through a search of the "World" section on the site.)

I appreciate that the story broke at a busy time --- on Tuesday, we had one eye on Iran, another on Iraq, and if we could have borrowed someone else's eye, we would have turned that on Afghanistan-Pakistan. Others were riveted by the coup drama in Honduras. Still, you would have thought that 72 hours later, the leading US newspapers would have caught up with the drama of a freighter seized at sea and 21 international activists tossed into Israeli holding cells.

In part, the explanation may be that McKinney, stigmatised as an "extremist", a "radical", and a dangerous-to-know person during and after her time in Congress, is poison for some newspaper editors (conversely, it's probably far from incidental that Fox News, which has long targeted McKinney as a figure of derision, has been in the media lead on the story). Part of the reason might be that the drama was muted by the lack of photos and footage.

I suspect, however, there is a wider, more significant reason. Paying attention to the story also means paying attention to the cause: the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. And acknowledging the scale of the continuing economic deprivation and social destruction in that besieged territory, led by a Hamas Government that a lot of people do not want to recognise, is a step too far.

To be fair, from time to time, a Times or Post reporter will drop by the territory to file a story. It's far different, however, to link that coverage to the immediacy of political protest. So, as McKinney and others continue to refuse deportation, no doubt hoping that their jail stay will eventually be noticed, and as Israeli authorities just hope the incident will disappear, expect the Times and Post to ignore a story that is not fit to print.

Iran: Scott Lucas Audio Interview with Fintan Dunne

The Latest from Iran (1 July): The Opposition Regroups

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

Fintan Dunne, a freelance journalist who has already spoken with Professor Muhammad Sahimi of Tehran Bureau and with Professor Hamid Dabashi, was one of the most demanding interviews I've done recently but also one of the most rewarding, covering both the immediate and long-term conflicts and possibilities in the Iranian situation.