How al-Reuters works within tyrannies Updated
posted at 9:29 pm on December 12, 2006 by Bryan
Eason Jordan confessed in April 2003 that CNN looked the other way rather than report Saddam’s many crimes against humanity, in order to maintain the network’s access to Iraq. I’ve always suspected that that confession could probably have worked just as well for AP, Reuters and any other nominally Western news agency that also worked within Saddam’s Iraq, and indeed within most if not all other less than free societies. Those agencies just didn’t confess. Entities like Saddam’s Iraq simply don’t have the same view of press freedom that the West has. They see the press either as a nuisance to be crushed or a tool to be used. Lately, probably more the latter than the former.
And so it seems to be with al-Reuters, which is reporting on Iran’s Holocaust denial conference. I started digging after I stopped laughing at the way Reuters’ Parisa Hafezi characterized David Duke, in a story about the conference.
Among the participants was U.S. academic David Duke, a former Louisiana Republican Representative. He praised Iran for hosting the event. (h/t LGF for the catch)
David Duke, an “academic?” That’s a bit like calling me a wing for the Dallas Mavericks. You can say it all you want, but saying it doesn’t make it true.
I got to wondering, where might Parisa Hafezi have gotten the idea that David Duke is an “academic?” Well, other than from Duke himself, who is in Tehran meeting with fellow anti-Semitic ghouls and “academics.” He has to put something on his business card, and “racist wingnut” probably won’t slip past the editors at Kinkos.
The klanner does have a website. It does call him an “academic.” His “academic” credential (note the singular) consists of a PhD from “the MAUP University system in Kiev, Ukraine, the largest university system in Ukraine.” I guess the MAUP is nothing to sneeze at, but, what, Duke couldn’t get Yale to take him? Yale did take the boolah boolah mullah, after all? If anything, by comparison to him David Duke comes off as moderate.
Parisa Hafezi’s article does note Duke’s past (?) association with the KKK, but it’s secondary to his being a “US academic.” Ask yourself, what reporter in their right mind sees David Duke as a “US academic” first and a former Grand Whatever of the KKK second? One who is putting lipstick on the pig that is Iran’s disgusting mass murder denial festival.
Parisa Hafezi’s story runs two pages. The first is where you’ll find Duke and, in general, where you’ll find the Iranian government’s perspective. It couches the conference as an exercise in free speech, to earn points with the better angels of the West’s civil rights nature. On the second page, which most readers won’t bother with, you’ll find criticism of the conference. But the only critics quoted by name–Jooooos. There are Jews who get a bit more prominent play in the story–second graph, as a matter of fact. But those Jews are, like Duke and Iran’s president and the conference participants, holocaust deniers. They’re waaaaay out on the fringe of, well, everything imaginable.
So what’s my point in all this, other than to poke fun at David Duke’s academic credential? To point out that Reuters’ Parisa Hafezi has published, on Reuters’ byline, the closest thing to the Iranian government’s point of view that won’t show up on Mahmoud’s letterhead. A Google search on “Parisa Hafezi” turns up a mine of stories couched from that perspective, more or less. This is how Parisa Hafezi can continue to operate within the tyranny that is the Islamic Republic of Iran, and this is the product that Reuters puts out to its thousands of outlets around the world. Hafezi is useful to Iran, by publishing its perspective (though it’s often tin-eared and cluess, as in calling David Duke a “US academic”) as hard news.
Would Reuters publish a news story written from a more or less American government perspective, like it does routinely with the work of Parisa Hafezi?
Don’t make me laugh. Again.
But this is a little window into how Reuters and AP can operate within, say, Iran today and, say, Hezbollah’s stronghold in Lebanon tomorrow. Or in Gaza the day after that. None of these places grant true press freedom. Reuters’ reporters toe the tyrants’ line, either because they’re working for the tyrant or are under the tyrant’s heel. Reuters’ Western editors have to be aware of this, yet they do nothing about it. They publish the work of local stringers that amounts to official government (or insurgent, or Hezbollah) propaganda. We read such journalism coming from Iraq every day. When we challenge it, they sniff at us. But not at the crap their local stringers and scribes are doling out.
At least Eason Jordan confessed to the crime.
Update: David Duke, “US academic,” tells the holocaust-denying crowd in Tehran that the Nazis didn’t use gas chambers to kill Jews. Apparently the MAUP laureate doesn’t know how to run a Google image search.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Call me cynical… but I’d wager a crisp dollar bill that one of the main reasons Reuters ran the story to begin with was to get the word Republican in there linked to David Duke and Holocaust denial in Iran.
Dash on December 12, 2006 at 9:37 PM
What I’d like to know is where is Barbra Strisand while all this is happening? I believe she supports Israel, and I know she is outspoken, so where is she? In fact, it seems that many of the Jewish Hollywood has been silent about all that happens in Iran. If someone could drop her a line and find out what she thinks about all this, I would really appreciate it. Also, suggest that she read, “Because They Hate”.
bloggless on December 12, 2006 at 9:43 PM
Collaborators. It is that simple..the “media” collaborates with any kind of tyrant or regime simply in order to have a byline from said place. Despicable but not surprising anymore.
labwrs on December 12, 2006 at 10:17 PM
Anyone that continues to believe the MSM deserves the world they will get. The only down side is that they will take a lot of us with them.
rmgraha on December 12, 2006 at 10:46 PM
The MSM: The modern day version of quislings. Their heads should be shaved and walked through the streets. They are collaborators and Benedict Arnolds.
pocomoco on December 12, 2006 at 11:25 PM
Anything for a story. I mean, that’s really what it seems to be. Collaborating with the enemy while they target our soldiers in the streets – nothing surprises me about news organizations anymore. It’s all about the political agenda of the editors. So few columnists can be trusted anymore either but the standard exceptions like Cal Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Charles Krauthammer, George Will and a few precious others to offset the constant drivel of provocateurs like Maureen Dowd, Arianna Huffington and the rest. Interestingly, the columnists who actually make you think are generally conservative. The others just preach to their choirs.
thedecider on December 12, 2006 at 11:49 PM
The left is afraid to speak against those that really will harm them – instead, they focus on going after those that protect their freedom.
Rick on December 13, 2006 at 12:13 AM
where’s a G-D-Damned tomahawk cruise missile when you need one?!
Defector01 on December 13, 2006 at 12:53 AM
I don’t know that it’s cowardice. The effect of Bryan’s point is that these agencies trade all journalistic integrity for access/sales. But I also see ideological bias, agenda journalism, and political activism at work in all of these stories, as the whole HotAir genre has demonstrated ad nauseum.
As bloggless points out in the original comment, it’s pathetic to watch American Jews swallow their tongues in the face of the astonishing anti-Israel bias and anti-semitism.
We just need to get Mel Gibson to comment on the Iran Holocaust Carnival, I guess. Then Hollywood can come out from under the bed and see what we see.
Jaibones on December 13, 2006 at 1:14 AM
I remember reading about this. His “PhD” is in history I believe. Except it is about some sort of Zionist conspiracy.
Seriously. He got a PhD in something like how the Jews are responsible for all the wars of the world or something like that.
EFG on December 13, 2006 at 2:33 AM
Funny, but I read the article and didn’t find any instances of the phrases “racist,” or “bigot,” or “anti-Semite,” even when David Duke is being discussed. Can you imagine Reuters avoiding terms like that if a bunch of pro-Confederate “academics” held a conference claiming that slavery was a good deal for African-Americans?
And by the way, my parents’ friends who are phony-baloney “Holocaust survivors” from Hungary must’ve had those serial numbers tattooed on their arms as a fashion statement. Riiiiight.
Sean M. on December 13, 2006 at 6:03 AM
Very good points Jailbones. I’ve been telling my friends that the MSM has lost touch with their roots, which should be telling the facts with as little personal/corporate/political affiliation bias and is now driven by large corporations bent on making the money now and to $%!! with the future. They don’t realize they are digging their own grave along side everyone else in this country. I said it before here on Hot Air, I believe the MSM to be our biggest enemy. They are slowly poisoning our minds.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a devout hard core capitalist and I have chosen to start buying small amounts of stock in NYT and other “lost” media outlets. This allows me as an owner to have an avenue to complain about the integrity of the content. Albeit a small voice but at least an avenue.
My question to the Hot Air members is:
Where can I find accurate news to form my own opinion?
I know FOX claims this, but I do see some bias from them.
bubbadog89 on December 13, 2006 at 8:33 AM
Iran = mountains
Mountains = lots and lots of bridges
Bridges = lots and lots of Zoomies smiling on their way home.
Limerick on December 13, 2006 at 9:07 AM
good lord
Was the way I read it first thing this morning.
Ugh… need coffee.
Kai on December 13, 2006 at 11:01 AM
I believe this and I do think it is an important insight into how these organizations are allowed access to totalitarian states but I haven’t yet decided how I feel about it. I understand the criticism many of you make about Reuters getting too close to Iran and trading jounalistic integrity for access and I think it is a valid one. However, at the same time without Reuters and similar organizations doing what they are doing the only information we would have access to out of Iran would be official state-approved media. Yes, many of the stories are slanted in unfortunate ways and Iran is portrayed in a positive light it doesn’t deserve, but if this is the only way independent media organizations are allowed access isn’t this better than no information at all?
Are we willing to sift through the bias to uncover what is actually occuring inside Iran? If not, it would appear we would be cut off completely and have no insight on the country’s internal workings. Is there a chance Reuters depises writing stories that portray things in this light but feels the stories themselves are important and if this is the way they must be written it is the lesser of two evils? I’m still on the fence regarding how I feel about all of this.
JaHerer22 on December 13, 2006 at 11:03 AM
Its called news by “committee”. You pick and choose what to read and after a while you MIGHT be able to figure out what is true and what is not.
Or, you might not.
Thats why the bloggesphere helps as much as it does, scores of searches can result in….results.
shooter on December 13, 2006 at 11:30 AM
These news agencies are pretty much worthless. If you trade in objectivity and integrity for “access” then you are not reporting the news, you are reporting what they want you to report. And who does that benafit?
If you can not print the truth then don’t print what they want just so you can have access. The access is worthless. If CNN took the high road and refused to filter Saddams propaganda they would have been kicked out of Iraq. Then what? They would not have anything to report? Well damn, reporting a lie is not true report, its just “Story hour with the goons”.
CNN and the rest of the MSM would have been better off reporting about the corruption and the restrictions placed upon them, then the world would see the truth and might do something.
Course this would effect their earning potential, and thats what the “news” is all about now.
Wyrd on December 13, 2006 at 11:46 AM
I’m glad I’m not the only one! SHEW!
SouthernGent on December 13, 2006 at 11:51 AM
Yup. And the nearly complete control of the voice of mass media by the left in this country is an overwhelming force. I have become quite the nutjob on this issue — no thanks to people like Rush, MM, Ingraham, and their ilk — to the point where my daughters have a hard time watching a movie with me.
“Yeah, Dad, we know…”
“OK, whatever…”
Jaibones on December 13, 2006 at 12:01 PM
Yes, many of the stories are slanted in unfortunate ways and Iran is portrayed in a positive light it doesn’t deserve, but if this is the only way independent media organizations are allowed access isn’t this better than no information at all?
JaHerer22 on December 13, 2006 at 11:03 AM
NO it is not! I would guess that the American public trusts the MSM more than their own govt. This means that the MSM is feeding us lies and we are eating it up as the truth while our government is telling us the truth and we don’t believe it.
Something is wrong with this picture. If our elected officials lie and cheat us we get to vote them out. If the MSM lies to us, were still stuck with them.
bubbadog89 on December 13, 2006 at 12:10 PM
I couldn’t agree more. Look at the link here on Hot Air with the interview of the soilders talking about what they are doing in Iraq. They think we are winning and making a difference but the MSM wouldn’t dare mention what the soilders think.
When was the last time ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/NYT ran a story about our forces building a school, road or any other good service in Iraq. I know my local stations run at least 1 “fluff” segment a night about some poor dog or cat or whatever but refuse to tell us what good is being done in Iraq by our own local soilders.
ARRRGGGGG! Time to chill out.
bubbadog89 on December 13, 2006 at 12:24 PM
Bubbadog89,
You took some good investment advice on NYT stock. Buy low and sell high!
budorob on December 13, 2006 at 12:26 PM
All good points here.
To what extent is laziness and multi-cultural sensitivity a factor in the way the old media reports the news?
I would believe that AP or Reuters feel they have an obligation to work with and trust the press agencies of these Middle Eastern countries. And when the bloggers catch something amiss, the press gets more angry then usual b/c everyone knows that you get more angry at problems that are your own fault.
I doubt they have a very good way to check out these stories. And the fact that some of these mistakes are so glaring (especially the fauxtography) makes me think that laziness or indifference might also be the cause.
budorob on December 13, 2006 at 12:34 PM
I didn’t say I was sinking my life savings into to it. Yes, they have had a great run up but do seem to be heading back down now, most likely due to the easy access of news from other sources.
My intention was to have an avenue to complain about the content that is offered. Who knows, maybe I’ll show up at a stock holders meeting and get to air my complaints in front of other shareholders for 3 minutes.
bubbadog89 on December 13, 2006 at 12:44 PM
The problem with that is that the vast majority of people in the world don’t go through the trouble of sifting through this stuff to determine what is true, etc. In fact, many, many people rely on this information, and believe it to be objective and the truth – when in fact, as we have seen many times recently, it’s just the opposite. Seriously, this type of reporting is just the same as if the State-run news agency had done it (just as biased) – at least then, people know they are getting biased information, as opposed to a well-respected news agency that goes about doing the same thing. As for whether or not Reuters despises doing that – that’s not the point. They hold themselves out to be objective and reliable journalists – which they apparently aren’t.
Rick on December 13, 2006 at 12:59 PM
“… the Nazis didn’t use gas chambers to kill Jews.”
I find that comment very interesting, given that I personally stood in a gas chamber used to kill Jews while visiting the Dachau concentration camp just outside of Munich. In the attached museum, they have photographs taken by the Nazis of Jews killed in the chamber prior to their incineration. The crematorium and gas chamber are still there for anyone to see if they care to know the truth.
Blacksheep on December 13, 2006 at 2:33 PM
So you would rather read a lie, than wait for the truth? You think an inaccurate newstory is useful for obtaining information? What part do you believe and not believe? What a strange way of learning.
right2bright on December 13, 2006 at 3:22 PM