One of Andrew's readers asks where the MSM is on Iran. The New York Times and numerous internet sites have wall-to-wall coverage, including Andrew's sterling work. Other outlets practically ignored the biggest story currently going on in the world over the weekend.
I haven't commented on it because other than the obvious--elections should result in the election of the person who got the most votes--I don't have anything to add. I know nothing about Iran, and I don't blog much about foreign policy because I don't know much about foreign policy.
But I think Andrew's reader's question is ultimately a business story. Why doesn't the MSM have more coverage? Because they don't have the manpower. The cable networks are hamstrung by the fact that they don't have much footage of what's going on in Iran. As I watch, they're showing a combination of shots of peaceful protests in Western countries, lying propaganda footage from Iran's state television system, and random b-roll of unidentified protests in some unidentified country that does not seem to be Iran. This is less than must-see-TV.
The print media is hamstrung by the fact that they've slashed their foreign bureaus to the bone--and then amputated the bone. There are too few journalists in too few places to cover a big story like this.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
"I don't blog much about foreign policy because I don't know much about foreign policy." That's what's known as a hostage to fortune.
And the Atlantic is paying how many foreign journalists to report election results from Tehran?
You are confusing description with prescription.
I mean, other than the breathless coverage being provided by Andrew Sullivan from the comfort of his office down the hall.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/what-this-election-became.html
Right, but Andrew is relying a lot on Twitter, Facebook, and some boggers from inside Iran, and in order for cable to do that, they would have to finally admit that they are getting their butts kicked by Twitter, Facebook, some bloggers from inside Iran.
Every once in a while I wish that The Atlantic had a comment ratings system. Then I could rate a comment like this "+1"
I wish someone would pay me six figures to sit around regurgitating fking Tweets like some kind of obese penguin.
What a fking joke.
Actually I find the Iran events to be pretty well covered. I've seen some impressive footage on youtube and lots of first hand reports. How much are we really missing MSM coverage? Are citizen journalists rising to fill the gap?
I suspect that in the years ahead that as high-speed internet and digital cameras/camcorders become more ubiquitous that the MSM will become less relevant/necessary. The only real big loss will be having someone to put together a coherent narrative for you -- but then again maybe this will force people to think for themselves and prevent media groupthink.
"...maybe this will force people to think for themselves and prevent media groupthink."
I'd bet that it'll actually make more people just stop paying attention. Whether that's better or worse than people being indoctrinated into the "media groupthink" depends on how bad you think the groupthink is.
"I haven't commented on it because other than the obvious--elections should result in the election of the person who got the most votes--I don't have anything to add."
Okay, now you're just baiting the left wing bloggers.
if we are on the topic of "not covering stuff" what about those two japanese dudes recently detained at the italian/swiss border with a macroeconomic amount of bearer bonds in their briefcase (on the order of 100 BILLION EUROS worth of securities) - were the bonds fake (audacious fraud at the very least) and if NOT, then the conspiracy-generators go into overdrive.........but nobody is covering this......
I could be totally wrong but I find it a little hard to believe that the entire outstanding bearer bond market is much more than 100 Billion Euros. I've been in finance for 10 years and I've never even heard of an actual transaction involving a bearer bond. I'm sure there are some 500 year gilts from 1643 or something still outstanding but...
i also work in the OTC markets (fx,bonds,repo) and i too have not seen physical bonds for any material amount, but i gather switzerland would have more traffic in these due to the privacy/secrecy-incentives that prevail....compared to London/NYC/Tokyo norms
and btw, the LARGE bonds circa 1643 (of any currency/regime) would be denominatd in 10,000's likely - i am not even sure there was an english/french/latin word to express billions or millions or trillions at that time, but perhaps there was in arabic/urdu/hindi/mandarin....
"Million", definitely. According to the OED, "billion" and "trillion" existed in French in the 16th century (though as in traditional UK usage, to denote a million squared and cubed rather than a thousand million and a million million, respectively), though they weren't adopted into English until the late 17th.
(Which isn't to say anyone was doing financial transactions with the larger figures.)
According to investopedia (the accuracy of which I have no idea, admittedly, but I'm ssuming it's approximately correct), DTC only has $3.5 billion in bearer bonds in it's vaults. Now Switzerland would certainly have more... but $100 Billion in some dude's briefcase? Nah. The only question in why this "story" wasn't covered in the "How Dumb are these criminals?!" file.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/bonds/08/bearer-bond.asp
Actually, the BBC and Sky TV from the UK seem to be getting some damn good footage. (Which Andrew Sullivan is using.) Do the Brits just care more about it than we do, is their broadcast media healthier and better connected, or do they just have better journalists and editors? [Exits quietly stage left]
Reasons for limited MSM coverage of what is happening are fairly obvious; and are both domestic American and domestic Iranian.
Iran is not averse to causing immediate physical harm to foreigners who offend it. Thus there is a matter of literal physical fear for safety. There are also less physical means of controlling access. American reporters will trade truth, accuracy, and what used to be considered journalistic ethics for the sacred goal of access. Look at the admitted abject willingness to report anything that Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq wanted, and only what it wanted just a few years ago before the Second Gulf War began. It is not possible to maintain that since then the media has become less venal, more ethical, or less ideological in the interim. Add to this the detail that media outlets have deliberately [for both safety and financial reasons] reduced their footprint in areas controlled by enemies of the United States; and have replaced the difference in part with with local hires who usually work for forces hostile to the US [how many American media local staffers in Iraq pre-Surge really worked for the Baath Party, Al Quada, or Iran?] and we see that very little other than what America's enemies want is reported.
Domestically, we see a similar, albeit less physically dangerous, dynamic at work. Reporters are valued by their access to those in power. Thus, most reporting consists of rehashed press releases, if not verbatim press releases, and is usually identical regardless of media or outlet.
There is a domestic editorial bias involved too. 'Teh One' has declared the victor in Iran, and his willingness to appease Ahmadinijad at all costs. Reporting actual events in Iran would hint that Buraq Hussein Obama could be wrong. That is not going to happen. And the interesting thing is that this restricted view is so internalized by our media that it is automatic.
It is no coincidence that to get anything beyond the official Federal government view of what is happening domestically, you have to go to foreign sources; albeit with one's BS filters set on stun. Because the foreign press has their own anti-American bias' that they filter the news through. Similarly for foreign affairs in critical areas.
So Epicurean Dealmaker, don't exit too far. You can watch me draw the fire.
Subotai Bahadur
Here's what I said on Marginal Revolution, which I'd like to share here as well:
The big reason why is because newspapers and magazines are not built to be real-time information processors. They process news in batches. Reporters write copy -> editors edit -> rinse/repeat -> more editing/copy editing -> layout -> final chance to kill a piece -> print -> distribute. If something new happens during that batch process, the copy used to be killed, and you'd start over with new copy. It's actually very efficient when you are trying to publish in certain time intervals, because you can tailor the length of the copy to suit the needs of the other steps. (That's why magazine articles are typically longer than their newspaper counterparts, and why the Science Times only comes out once a week.)
But as information moves faster and faster over the Internet, batch processing is too slow. You need to set your time interval to be minutes, not days or even hours, and the batch process flow can't even handle 140 characters that quickly.
You mean I'm going to have to read Andrew Sullivan?
Well, ok. But only until he finds the Sarah Palin angle.
With due respect, lack of footage or information has never seemed to hinder cable news in the past. I think you're probably right that it's a business question with a business answer. Maybe they just don't think people will stay tuned?
There was footage on Fox News last night which was attributed to citizens with cell phones.
Why doesn't the MSM have more coverage? Because they don't have the manpower.
Not buying it. They always seem to find the resources for the stories they care about. They just don't particularly care about a stolen election in Iran, especially when it undermines their historic leader's outreach efforts.
As I recall they had no problem using stringers in Iraq, even when those stringers had obvious credibility problems (e.g. Jamil Hussein and the "Burning Sunnis" story that turned out to be made up, the Haditha non-massacre, etc.).
On top of that, there's the access issue. It was admitted they downplayed Saddam's atrocities because they wanted access. Why would Iran be any different?
I'm not surprised you wouldn't have seen or heard of a bearer bond transaction. They government made the interest paid on bearer bonds non-tax deductible to the payer in 1982 (and non-excludible for municipal bonds), so I doubt many have been issued since then. Besides, the whole point of bearer bonds is to have an asset you can trade outside normal channels.
That said, I agree the numbers seem a bit large to be believable. But if it's fraud, what were they hoping to accomplish? It would be like counterfeiting a million dollar bill.
There is some good plausible speculation here.
That author notes an uncanny resemblance to a 2007 hoax from the Philippines, as well as a 2005 warning from the Fed about hoax 1934 bonds. His speculation was that it was a couple of Filipino con men, one of whom, Yohannes Riyadi, was mentioned in the 2005 hoax warning. The further speculation is that the con men may have not intended to cash the bonds (since it's unlikely anyone has $500M, let alone $130B on hand) but instead may have intended to use them as proof of their wealth for an unreleated hoax on some other sucker.
backup data here
Most people normally call that network by it's proper name - CNN.
Perhaps it undermines the 'axis of evil' and 'Islamic fundamentalist' narratives, the foundation for much of this misbegotten "war on terror' and 'war on Israel.'
TallDave
As I recall they had no problem using stringers in Iraq, even when those stringers had obvious credibility problems (e.g. Jamil Hussein and the "Burning Sunnis" story that turned out to be made up, the Haditha non-massacre, etc.).
Say again? Michelle Malkin denied the existence of Jamil Hussein. She then, when faced with evidence, grudgingly admitted the man existed after all. Afterwords she went to Iraq and filmed the mosques, which "weren't damaged enough to have been burned and blown up" (interestingly, she only visited 2 out of 4). That was in her, you know, expert and unbiased opinion.
As a result of a demented war apologist like Malkin trying to play Real Journalist, the Iraqi Interior Ministry arrested Jamil Hussein, a very real operational of the Multi-National Force - Iraq, for talking to journalists. AP not only lost a source that provided information for more than 2 years, but probably many others who watched the example of Jamil Hussein.
The burning Sunnis story was later corroborated by other witnesses. But these witnesses, not surprisingly, didn't wish to be identified. There remains reasonable doubts about the story, who couldn't be properly fact-checked. This is a legitimate criticism of AP.
Just saying that the story "turned out to be made-up" isn't just inaccurate, it's simply false. But suppose the whole story was, indeed, made up by Jamil Hussein. Does that mean that all American correspondents in Iraq lack credibility?
Here, read this. I hope you find it instructive.
Too many foreign correspondents have put their lives in jeopardy in Iraq for me not to say something about the incredibly casual and ignorant tone in which you smear the credibility of our journalists overseas with your grotesque conspiracies of the MSM.
They just don't particularly care about a stolen election in Iran, especially when it undermines their historic leader's outreach efforts.
and
It was admitted they downplayed Saddam's atrocities because they wanted access.
Do you know how thoroughly uninformed and obtuse these sentences are? This subject, for personal reasons, is of great significance to me. So let me tell you what has already been pointed out by others regarding some of your previous comments: if you know nothing, or next to nothing about a particular subject, just consider the option of keeping your mouth shut>. Instead of, every time you read a news item, concocting a ludicrous story about how this is all the fault of the current administration.
Because it isn't just Obama you're attacking.
Lost in most of these comments is...Why hasn't our president said anything about this since his "vigorous debate" comment 4 days ago?
www.jourtegrity.blogspot.com
I think you found the answer why there is little coverage.
If Washington isn't the center of the storm, there is no or little coverage. If there was an argument between Cheney and Obama about what to do in Iran, it would be on front pages, and the side details of people being shot in Iran would be mentioned in passing.
I suspect the CIA and State Department are uninterested or uncommunicative because they were caught flat footed. Or they don't have time between the 'told you so' screaming matches at the water cooler.
Who are we going to negotiate with if they can't figure out who the government is?
Derek
Megan,
I'm a little uncomfortable with you addressing Mr. Sullivan by first name. It seems a little like using a cute little endearing voice for a rabid dog. C'mere Cujo. There's a good boy. I've got a yummy biscuit for you. Wait! Cujo back! Cujo, I'm your friend. Cujo?!? Look! Defenseless Republican babies!!
Whew! that was close!
Well, coverage certainly increased with after the weekend. Most of the politicians in the U.S. seem to be convinced that there was an electoral fraud, and E.U. is pressing Iran for an investigation of the elections.
Meanwhile, there are already 7 dead among the protesters. Things aren't pretty.