Looking at the Press Coverage Surrounding Iran

There can be no doubt that the world as we know it is rapidly shifting and changing. As the year 2008 comes around, it seems more and more apparent that not only are political tensions shifting across the globe, but so are the ways in which we have learned to handle political relations and the manner in which we relate to those across the world. Certainly one excellent example of this can be found in the recent disclosure regarding Iran and it's nuclear weapons policy. The report, in very clear terms, made clear the fact that Iran had given up it's weapons development programs as early as 2003. Of course, as the United States prepared for possible actions to combat those non-existent weapons programs, it should seem only natural that the report has caused somewhat of a ripple in recent political affairs, and has left many questioning the United States foreign policy, as well as possible changes that will have to be made because of the release of this report. However, perhaps more than anything else, this report should make us think of the no-so-distant past, and the time when a report such as this could have actually changed the world as we know it today.

Of course, we are speaking about Iraq, and although reports of this nature were released regarding the idea that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction and was not a threat to the United States, those reports were either widely ignored or simply not taken seriously. However, perhaps this is a perfect time to consider if Iraq has made a definite impact on the press. As written in the book, "When the Press Fails", there are certain events that can increase the watchfulness of the press and also dramatically change the preset schemas and frames that were previously used to influence the mainstream news media.

Certainly it is interesting to compare the role of the press in the months and weeks leading up to Iraq as compared to the role of the press today. Whereas before the press seemed to be tied very closely with the Bush Administration, we seem to now be encountered a mainstream media which is far more accepting to liberal ideas and which is far more critical of the administration and it's policies. One need only take a glance at the front page of the New York Times to realize that the political climate has shifted greatly from the days leading up the Iraq invasion. Whereas before, anti-war statements and beliefs resulted in labels such as "traitor" or "unpatriotic", we now have a press which does far more than to simply press labels amongst those whose opinion may differ from what we commonly think of as mainstream. No, today our press has changed for the better, and we are no experiencing a press which is far more independent than what we have seen in the past under the Bush Administration.

However, perhaps the greater question lies not in whether or not the press has become more critical, but why it has done so. If we remember the discussions from class, and the information gathered from books such as Edelman's, it should seem only obvious that the press is starting to distance itself from the mainstream media because of the events of Iraq, and the many previous instances of administration failure. We first began to see this divide following the Hurricane Katrina disaster. However, now, with the Iraq war seeming to stretch on endlessly, we have both a nation and a press which wishes to avoid war at all possible costs. Also, perhaps the press has learned a major lesson from the mistakes that it made following the pre-war coverage of Iraq. We now have a press which is willing and able to accept opinions which do not come from the right side of the spectrum. However, even those these changes are a very positive thing, we must be careful to still remain critical of the press, as pro-war sentiments still do have a place on the front page. As evidenced by this quote from the article: "'On balance, the estimate is good news,' Mr. Hadley said, appearing at the White House. 'On one hand, it confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. On the other hand, it tells us that we have made some progress in trying to ensure that that does not happen. But it also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.'" Of course, it is only natural for the press to display different viewpoints, and perhaps this should not be a cause for concern yet.

Certainly the way in which the press deals with the coverage relating to Iran will be an interesting spectacle to witness. There can be no doubt that as the future of the possible Iran conflict continues, there will be many possible opportunities for the comparison of new coverage, both in the style and the substance of reports. Even though the press may be turning in a more critical direction, to say that we have achieved an independent press is a far stretch, and this should be a fact that is kept in mind by all as the events and information regarding Iran begin to gather.