RSS
Home
What Iranians can learn from America's free press
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
A Moussavi supporter hides her face from the press.
As we celebrated our nation’s independence this weekend, the people of Iran remained locked in a life-or-death struggle with the leadership of their nation in an attempt to gain the kind of freedoms our forefathers fought for 233 years ago. While the streets of Tehran are considerably calmer than they were three weeks ago, there remains an inexorable current of change slowly, steadily eroding the foundation of the authority of the regime which currently looms so darkly over the hopes and aspirations of its subjects. The very bedrock of the Iranian theocracy’s dominion rumbled beneath it today as the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, the nation’s most influential group of religious leaders and scholars, aligned itself with the people in declaring last month’s fraudulent presidential election illegitimate.
While it holds no official government power, the group is a crucial part of the religious establishment in a nation whose government’s claim to legitimacy relies on the credibility given to it by the country’s leading clerics. Considering the growing restiveness of each successive generation in Iran since the Islamic Revolution, it’s easy to imagine many of those religious leaders being confronted with more and more difficult questions regarding the ayatollahs’ civic and spiritual infallibility. By its actions, the Iranian regime effectively gave a Hobson’s choice to the only institution in the country capable of calling its primacy into question.
Meanwhile, the election’s losing candidate, Mir-Hossein Moussavi presented a report showing some of the illegal conduct the Ahmadinejad administration engaged in, such as bribery and misuse of government resources, in order to assure the incumbent president’s victory. While Ahmadinejad still has powerful allies within the clerical establishment, it is hard to imagine those allies remaining steadfast as evidence of fraud continues to mount, thereby risking their reputations and credibility among the nation’s clergy at large. And, it’s difficult to see how the government can prevent that evidence from continuing to pile up as Moussavi vows “no surrender” in his quest to see the election results overturned in his favor.
And, just as America was gearing up to celebrate her independence amid the Iranian people’s strife, Sarah Palin – following on the heels of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcet and Ed McMahon – became the latest locus of control in the American press’s perpetual struggle to come to grips with its role in world events. While her abdication of power in Alaska is obviously newsworthy (she was, after all, the Republican vice presidential nominee a scant nine months ago) the attention given to her resignation has been nothing short of ridiculous. At what time in history would anyone else under the same circumstances have garnered the sheer volume of coverage that Palin has? There is a point at which speculative analysis becomes mere spectacle, and it would be nice if America’s proud, free press were able to recognize it. Yet, to expect a sense of historical perspective from that proud, free press is apparently as futile as teaching your pet rock to fetch your slippers and newspaper.
That’s not to say that Palin is blameless in this orgy of vapidity. Having mere weeks ago dragged an apology out of David Letterman for his off-color (to put it mildly) broadside against her child, she knew full-well the sort of sideshow atmosphere that would come of her announcement. Perhaps it was by design – a political play to keep her name in the headlines as the typically slow news period between the Fourth of July and Labor Day sets in, and people squeeze what vacation remains out of the last days of summer before the kids start back to school. If that’s the case, it’s the kind of cynical ploy one might expect of the conventional politician. It would be particularly unfortunate if so, since the very core of Palin’s star is her unconventionality.
Whatever her motivation, it is difficult to see how her decision is a sound one if the intent is to position herself for elective office. As has been noted ad infinitum by every network roundtable participant and his armchair counterpart, she will forever be stained as a quitter, fairly or not. Assuming she is sincere in her explanation that she chose to leave now in order to spare the people of Alaska the indignity of financing a series of witch hunts, it is as certain as sunrise that she will only have temporarily abated her pursuers. And, any fiscal relief realized by Alaskans will be more than offset by the resulting increased scrutiny, negative coverage, and mockery the state will receive at the hands of the media from its growingly distant cousins in the lower 48.
It brings me no pleasure to say these things. I was an early supporter of Palin’s, having mentioned her name as a favored choice as running mate shortly after John McCain all but secured the GOP nomination, last February. I will forever hold the position that the treatment she received at the hands of the press and the entire media establishment is one of the most shameful displays in a long, lurid, sleazy history. Her arrival on the political scene reduced once-respectable journalists to bowel-roiling filth mongers who, in a more just world, would be brothel housekeepers. Even so, they’ve revealed themselves to be the intellectual equivalent of peepshow denizens, leaping out from behind journalistic shrubs at every eye-catching passer-by.
Yet, there are times when the behavior of politicians almost dictates this sort of prurient coverage. When Mark Sanford, the governor of South Carolina, purports to be hiking the Appalachian Trail in search of solitude, only to later admit to being an entire hemisphere away involved in a tryst with his soulmate while his wife and kids hold down the state capitol, it’s hard to find fault with a press that drags him back home, hitting every mud puddle along the way. It has always been, and will always be, the nature of the press to cover the salacious shenanigans of people in power. And, when the person in power’s name is being bandied about as a pretender to the presidency – and without even a perfunctory coy denial of interest on behalf of the pretender – one would expect the political survival instinct to rein in the libidinous adolescent in the man. The fact that it didn’t, plus the maudlin justifications that followed, make it difficult to muster enough ire to take the press to task for its voyeurism.
Perhaps in all of this there is still something that the people of Iran can learn from America’s example. Having lived in a world where there is no free press, and having seen the behavior of a press that takes its freedom for granted, maybe they’ll have a keener sense for what is valuable about that right and be more apt to hold that press more accountable than we do. Maybe they’ll have the good sense to tune out the tabloid chatter in favor of reporting that actually informs them of things that make a difference in the world. Perhaps when another nation’s people assert their right to self-determination, the people of Iran, and their press, will reward their efforts with wall-to-wall television coverage and blow-by-blow analysis while relegating the deaths of celebrities to the crawl at the bottom of the screen and intermittent one-minute updates during commercial breaks.
Of course, all of this assumes that the people of Iran will someday enjoy a free press. One thing's for sure: If they ever do, we can rest assured it won’t be due to any meddling on behalf of ours.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
