.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Monday, June 15, 2009

More claims of media bans in Iran

The BBC says their satellite broadcasts were jammed by the Iranians. A couple of German outfits say their reporters were not allowed to broadcast. More influentially, Al-Arabiya has been banned from working in the capital for a week.

(Notice there's no US outfit that pushed hard enough to be on that list.)

For the US networks, here's some Italian coverage of police motorcycles charging a crowd to show how on the street reporting is done.


  • The amount of Western media pressure is remarkable and well orchestrated. I guess the idea is to get another 'colour' revolution going. Got to wonder how long they'll keep it up.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:37 AM  

  • I find it interesting that no "Islamic" country has expressed concern over the "irregularities" of the Iranian elections. All that I can find is congratulations for Ahmadinejad. I was hoping Turkey -- as a democracy -- would have offered some words of concern for the processess.

    This concerns me, with regard to global stability. The Islamic world seems to be rallying around the hard-liners in Iran. Where is the international Islamic support for the reformers in Iran Rather than the world isolating Iran, the actions of the Ahmadinejad and the ruling council seem to be having the effect of causing a greater rift between East and West.

    Any idea what the official Saudi line is? How about Iraq?

    By Blogger -epm, at 9:33 AM  

  • Talibani (Kurd) has congratulated Ahmedinajad. It's really amazing this concern in the West for the Iranian electoral process. My impression it's all coming from the media.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:58 AM  

  • Not "coming from the media." I'm not talking about editorials. I'm talking about official western government statements of concern for the "irregularities" of this election. Most are framing their concerns around the Iranian popular protests and the hope that Iranians can come to a peaceful resolution.

    By Blogger -epm, at 10:20 AM  

  • Well I hope you're right. I can't help thinking of the multi-million dollar Iran destabilization program started by Bush and ongoing as far as I know.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:45 AM  

  • EPM, there's no Islamic comment because among that region, an election like this is really par for the course. Do the Saudis really want to start seeking judgments on democratic process?


    Anon, The reason it's a story here is that people wanted the change in government. This result clashes with the Obama "new world" frame that we're all living in.

    It's ugly.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 10:54 AM  

  • I'm not sure most people have a clue about Iranian politics. The media doesn't explain it very well. What evidence has Mousavi produced to show electoral fraud? How well do the Tehran elite represent the country? How many know for instance that Rafsanjani is one of the wealthiest men in Iran? Why is Ahmedinajad consistently portrayed as 'hard right' when most of his policies are socialist? Why does he have Khatami's ear? What's next for the protesters? Violence followed by brutal crackdown?

    I just see imbalance in the media coverage that's all. Maybe it does all have to do with Obama's policies. But those aren't clear to me either. When are the open talks going to start? What exactly is Iran supposed to do about it's nuclear program in order to be accepted in the 'world community'?

    BTW I see Dennis Ross got fired....maybe that's significant.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:11 AM  

  • Mike -- yeah, I get that the Saudi's are hardly in a position to talk about democratic elections. But Turkey is different. It's not that I expect expressions of condemnation -- even the West isn't doing that. It's just that since there is such a controversy surrounding this election I'm wondering about the outpouring of congratulations going to Ahmadinejad.


    Anon -- you bring up some very good points. I know what I think I know because it's the consensus of what I read. Yet the depth of what I know is admittedly extremely shallow.

    I think of Ahmadinejad has a hard-liner; not necessarily right wing. Although socially I suspect he's very conservative.

    By Blogger -epm, at 11:39 AM  

  • Well he's religious. Iranians are a religious people. Perhaps that why Western liberals have such trouble understanding. Doesn't make him a Nazi though. I think that comes from his anti-Israel position.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:54 AM  

  • Anon, I started out with those explanatory arguments, but after reading some folks I respect on Iran and the Middle East, I've come to the fraud position.

    As for Ahmadiejad, his economics are fairly socialist, but his diplomatic positions and stance towards religion and freedoms are very rightist. No, you can't simply call him rightist, but the source of friction in his country are his conservative positions.

    And, I haven't figured out how the Dennis Ross firing ties in yet. I think it does, but I'm not sure where it ties in. My guess is peace process probably tied to the Arab nations trying to sell it to their own people, a fear that a Jewish US negotiator would sour any public acceptance of a regional deal. But I don't really know yet.


    EPM, yeah, but Turkey has shown they want no lead in the regional politics unless it's forced upon them.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:50 PM  

  • I guess he is conservative in that sense. Does that make Moussavi a liberal? As far as I can tell the only difference between them is that Moussavi would be more open to Western business interests. But I guess that's what the Tehran elite want.

    The Dennis Ross case is interesting. Yes he's Jewish but so is Rahm Emmanuel. It's Netanyahu who wants to change the subject from settlements to Iran's nuclear potential. I think we have to wait for the dust to settle before we find out where the US stands with Iran.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home