msm wtf?

My feeling is that this week will mark a turning point in the descent of newspaper journalism and, increasingly, other big outlets in the mainstream media. The lack of Iran coverage from the NY Times to NPR has been bewildering to me. On the morning after the "election," The New York Times headlined that Achmadinijad had won and that there were protests in the streets. Same old same old, muslim riots. Move on to page 2.

But it has been obvious for some time to anyone following this election that this was an event of enormous proportions, and that the day after would not be the end of things if the election were considered a sham. By all counts, the election was just that - a sham, and a poorly disguised one at that. Why, then, did the New York Times fail to mention that fact? Why did it roll over and concede the election when the rival parties refused to - and while they were under house arrest?

I have been away from TV for the past week or so, so I have not seen the coverage - or lack of coverage - but from what I can discern from blogs and a little bit of radio is that what coverage there has been has served only to marginalize the election results and the ensuing riots.

To which, all I can say is, WTF?

Answering my own question, I come to the conclusion that the MSM is more in bed with the political establishment than is tolerable. From the point of view of the Obama Administration, while it would be nice to have a more moderate leader in Iran and have their public's voice heard, it is much more useful to have Achmadinijad in there. He is a known quantity, and he is easy to characature. For the hawks in the administration - and even some of the doves - who feel that military conflict is inevitable, any change in the calculus, i.e. a new leader, would disturb their plans and make it harder to forge ahead.

I can only come to the conclusion that Washington wants Achmadinijad there and that the MSM, acting as their mouthpiece, is encouraging that particular outcome.

This is nuts. And it may well turn out to be Obama's "Weapons of Mass Destruction," charade in which the MSM once again fails to think critically about Administration policy.

Andrew Sullivan has been reporting on his blog about Iran non-stop for three days. He has video clips, "tweets," and emails from people in the field. He is all over the story including the notable silence sweeping the main stream media coverage.

Perhaps more than WMD, this media response parallels the second wave of coverage after 9/11, the wave that acquiesced to Bush Admin Newspeak about hating freedom and so forth.

To me it is appalling, and my hope is that in this country, the obvious, Katrina-like blunder on the part of the MSM initiates our own green-style revolution against the tyranny of the Media which shows itself - again - to be nothing more than well-paid stenographers for the wish and whim of the people in charge. Let this be the transition to blog-land where writers are not in bed with the people they are reporting on, do not go to comedy, black-tie dinners with the people they are reporting on, and do not cow to to their every dispensation of scoopy tidbit.

Media is meant to be antagonistic to those in power, not cozy with them. Even the fact that reporters pay the government to fly on their airplanes poses an enormous conflict of interest. Not necessarily in the monetary pay-for-play sense, but in the sense that it automatically places the media in a position of subservience vis-a-vis the people they ought to be seeking to undermine. This DOES NOT WORK. It did not work in the Bush White House, where journalists were punished and rewarded based on the quality of their coverage, it does not work when the media fawns endlessly over Obama, and it does not work when real news and real history are at stake, as they are today in Iran.

So I say enough already with the pomp of the Main Stream Press. Put it to rest and bring the debate down to your level. There are plenty of articulate voices out there, and I prefer the twittering reports of real Iranians to the anemic narrations of US media foreign bureaus. We can figure out the news just fine without you.

Vibrant Democracy

Today there were widespread accusations that the current administration in Iran rigged the elections to give Achmadinijad another term. Protests raged in the streets by opposition supporters, and it took several hours to effectively suppress them by the police. One of the things that is striking about this footage is that many of the rioters are dressed in some sort of business attire, suits and slacks. I've never seen footage of rallies/riots in the middle east where the protesters were so well dressed. Not sure what conclusion to draw, but it seems at least that the violence is not just by the normally disaffected elements of society.

For a contrast, I have posted the schlappschwanz response to our 2000 version of an Achmadinijad victory in our country. It makes you think, who has the more vibrant Democracy?