Lula backs Iran's nuclear programme

Title: Lula backs Iran's nuclear programme
Author: Al Jazeera and agencies
Date: Tuesday, November 24th, 2009
Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/11/20091123202823289828.html

For my concluding entry I decided to turn to Al Jazeera English to examine the Iran nuclear sites issue. I had a prior feeling that Al Jazeera, the only independent news network in the Middle East, would try and take a look at this issue from a different angle (as opposed to Western views) due to its ongoing reputation, especially in the wake of 9/11, to present dissenting views. The content of this internet news article and subsequent news video clip proved my hypothesis to be correct. This was one of the very few news articles I found during the semester that examined how Iran does have nations (and a quite powerful one – Brazil) who supports its nuclear ambitions, as opposed to the six world powers who strictly oppose its program. Previous articles(BBC, CNN, Fox News) only focused their attention at how Iran was defiant and non-compliant with the requests of the world powers; nothing of Iran’s supporters was mentioned. Sardar and Van Loon would explain this by citing that cultural imperialism promotes a dominant set of cultural practices and values. Thus, the views of the West dominate the world media and depict Iran as evil.

Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president, who backs Tehran’s highly controversial nuclear programme said that "It's important that someone sits down with Iran, talks with Iran and tries to establish some balance so that the Middle East can return to a certain sense of normalcy." Up until now it appears as if world powers have isolated Iran and forced it to comply with their rules instead of seeking ways to push for peace and stability in the Middle East. The Brazilian president uses more conversational language to discuss the issue, "I told President [Barack] Obama, I told President [Nicolas] Sarkozy, I told [German] Chancellor Angela Merkel that we will not get good things out of Iran if we corner them. You need to create space to talk," he said last month. Of course, Al Jazeera also maintains its objectivity/journalistic integrity through the invocation of the ‘common ground’ and the coexistence of the ‘opposite opinion.’ (PowerPoint notes) Thus, it takes careful consideration to represent the views of the Brazilian opposition politicians in regards to this highly controversial matter.

Matheson and Chomsky analyze how linguistics and semiotics work to shape rhetoric. They would thus argue that the rhetorical use of diction, grammar and tone in this article work to neutralize the issue and like the Brazilian president mentioned, “create space to talk” (i.e. the article is presented as being just and balanced on this issue). Evidence for this? For one, this is the only article out of the five that uses direct quotes from Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Chomsky would also say that this news source is one of the more least likely ones to feel pressure from the five filters of The Propaganda Model. Meanwhile, Barthes would argue that the image accompanying the news story carries an ideological connotation; protests in Brazil, despite the support of their own president, show the growing fear of people in regards to nuclear Iran.

International Dilemma

Video: http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html
Title: International Dilemma
Date: October 29, 2009

After watching the documentary, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War On Journalism I decided to turn to the arguably far-right republican Fox News outlet for my next analysis of the Iran nuclear issue.

I logged onto their site and went to the video section to find a story. Under the “News” and subsequent “World” tabs the only relevant Iran story that I found was from this late-night/early morning talk show Red Eye that prides itself on being outrageous and outspoken. Oddly enough, is that not how most people describe Fox News itself? This show is in fact a blending of the comedy, satire and news parody genre like the highly-popular news satire The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
However, they are only similar in format not effectiveness since The Daily Show uses the “unsaid to function as truth” while Red Eye is untruthful in its comedic approach or “uses the said to function as a lie”. Megan Boler says that The Daily Show “puts real words into displaced contexts in a way that reveals the constructed-ness of the real and thereby creates an unsaid, shared commentary about the experience of feeling deceived by the media.” Alternatively, Red Eye does not function in the same manner but only attempts to present the issue in a very entertaining and sensationalist way without making much of a truth statement in regards to the issue at hand or the broader idea of the demand “for media accountability to standards of civic discourse seen as central to democracy” (Boler 147). This then bids the question that if this program is not meant to be taken very seriously, why would the Fox website deliberately place this video in the reliable news section? Noam Chomsky would say that Fox News believes that its audience is too stupid to be able to understand things and thereby, this news channel that acts as a specialized class deduces the status of the masses as spectators or bewildered herd. If, like the first filter dictates, the media is oriented around profit, then Fox’s way of gaining the attention of this bewildered herd is by drawing them in using entertainment. On the other hand, other news sources previously analyzed like the BBC use their superior status and credibility as trustworthy disseminators of the news to turn a profit.

Let us examine. The news anchor, Greg Gutfeld, seems like he belongs more on an entertainment news channel than on a serious news network. But then again, Fox has a reputation for its scandalous over-the-top reporting and perhaps that is their primary tactic to draw in the ratings. What makes the news story appear more legit is the fact that they bring in former US ambassador to the United Nations and Fox News contributor American conservative John Bolton. The bias is inherent when the anchor states “Obama is quietly preparing for a nuclear Iran” and then goes on to bid the question if “Does that mean we have just given up hope from stopping them from getting the bomb?” Thus, he deduces such a complex issue to an even simpler conclusion. Throughout the segment the anchor continuously makes seemingly inappropriate remarks that make it seem that he is takes the solemn issue very lightheartedly. (e.g his clenching or unclenching the fist comments). He even makes a joke of how hard it is to use Uranium for nuclear purposes (e.g countries that don’t have indoor plumbing have a nuclear bomb). They also go so far as to ridicule Obama by saying, “I mean it’s a bit difficult having won the Nobel peace prize actually to do anything that might advance American interest. I think that’s going to come back to haunt him especially in respect to Iran.”

To reiterate from the last posts for the sake of comparison, Matheson and Chomsky analyze how linguistics and semiotics work to shape rhetoric. They would thus argue that the rhetorical use of diction, grammar and tone sensationalizes the events in this article to evoke a particular reaction from the reader. Matheson argues in his Discourse Analytic Perspective that a close analysis of the discourse used in a particular headline creates meaning that is not directly transparent. If we deconstruct the meaning of the title into its linguistic formula (word choice, grammar) and the preconceived notions of the media consumer, we begin to understand the particular social reality that is being reinforced. The intended reaction from the title “International Dilemma” suggests once again that Iran is labeled (Matheson) as the villain or central problem and that this is an international issue that the majority of nations side with the US on. Again like the previous posts, this is a faulty generalization because it is not certain that all nations take this stance.

Taking Fox’s reputation into consideration there is no reason to doubt that they actually stand behind their commentary even though they are presented in a comical context. Perhaps, this is Fox’s way of presenting its viewpoints (i.e. in a humorous way) without any serious repercussions from other news agencies that accuse them of overwhelming bias and being anti-democratic. They can always use the excuse, “we were only kidding.”

Blog: Going Beyond the State – Part 1: Iran

Title: Going Beyond the State – Part 1: Iran
Author: Sahar Zubairy
Date: Thursday, October 8th, 2009.
Source: http://iran.foreignpolicyblogs.com/tag/world-public-opinionorg/

For my next News Weblog dealing with the much coveted issue regarding the not so secret (anymore) building of Iran’s second nuclear enrichment plant, I decided to examine a platform that I normally do not refer to for news; a blog. I think there is a general consensus and idea that blogs are not credible sources of news as anyone can essentially write one and post it on the net (i.e. citizen journalism). How can these people be held accountable for what they write if they are not under the control of any news agency? However, we can also raise the opposite question by asking how these people can be in fact be more objective then most news agencies as they do not feel direct pressure from the five filters of the propaganda model? Chomsky would argue that this blog is less susceptible to the five filters as these are journalists working independently of huge news corporations.

The specific blog I chose was entitled “Going Beyond the State – Part 1: Iran” published by Sahar Zubairy on Thursday, October the 8th on the World Affairs Blog Network for Iran. I decided to check out the “About” section for the website and this is what it said:

Foreign Policy Blogs is the largest network of global affairs blogs online. Staffed by scores of professional contributors from the worlds of journalism, academia, business, non-profits and think tanks, the FPB network tracks global developments from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe and everywhere in between, daily.

It becomes immediately apparent that the blogger expects the reader to have some degree of informed knowledge regarding the issue at hand as he does not take the time to summarize the topic of Iran and its recent controversial nuclear program. This is clearly different from the previous articles I have examined by the BBC and CNN that give a good outline of the events that have occurred in relation to the discovery of Iran’s second enrichment plant. Thus, one can conclude that news is usually presented differently on blogs because bloggers expect to have some form of reader following who read their blogs on a regular basis. If people take the time to search for these blogs it means that they obviously have some form of interest and knowledge in this subject. Meanwhile, the BBC and CNN who broadcast to millions of people across the globe must always make sure that they are giving all necessary background information for there may always be new listeners (alongside recurrent ones) who are not necessarily aware of the events that previously occurred. If these news corporations simply delved into the latest “installment” of the issue and negated presenting earlier facts that provided a complete understanding, it would lead to a lot of confusion.

Matheson argues in his Discourse Analytic Perspective that a close analysis of the discourse used in a particular headline creates meaning that is not directly transparent. If we deconstruct the meaning of the title into its linguistic formula (word choice, grammar) and the preconceived notions of the media consumer, we begin to understand the particular social reality that is being reinforced. The title “Going Beyond the State” is meant to signify that the people of Iran deserve to have a voice as well. Compare this to the BBC podcast and CNN news article, and it blatantly differs as this article strays away from the people in power that those two news agencies deliberately focus on.

That being said, the blog is mainly focused on presenting Word Public Opinion Polls on how Iranians view their nuclear program and the United States. Thus, another feature of the blog as a news platform is that it can technically be as focused as it wishes to be while completely ignoring and/or omitting other aspects or points of views. Some blogs get all the freedom they want to endorse any idea despite how untruthful or bizarre it may be (note: not specifically this blog as it is composed of a group of concerned journalists and citizens who probably do wish to convey logical thoughts or opinions). In this case, the blog is dedicated to strictly presenting the viewpoints of Iranians in regards to their country’s own nuclear program and their views on the United States. Although this is a subjective outlook on the matter as it only covers the opinions of one side, it is also a breath of fresh air. Rarely, does a seemingly objective collective news source group strictly present the side of what the West and its allies deem as the “problem.” The blog is also only presenting hard statistics and facts and kind of gives the reader the chance to form their own conclusions since the author really does not voice his own opinion.

Overall, I learned a lot about going to a news source that I do not normally go to. In this particular case, I realized just how divided Iranians were on their own nuclear program and how the majority of Iranians have an unfavorable view of the US government even after Obama has taken office. This article really does as its title suggests; it goes beyond the state. The focus of the article is not about the governments and political powers involved but the people.

U.S. to Iran: Prove your nuclear program is peaceful

Title: U.S. to Iran: Prove your nuclear program is peaceful
Source: CNN (website) - http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/27/us.iran/index.html
Date: September 27th, 2009

The controversy surrounding Iran’s nuclear program after information revealing the building of a underground second uranium enrichment plant was disclosed publicly, is heavily prevalent and discussed in today’s news discourse. To further analyze the differing treatment of this topic from ranging news sources and platforms, I looked to the “Most Trusted Name in News” CNN (although they have been continuously scrutinized for being media bias and allegedly promoting both a conservative and liberal viewpoint) who have intensely covered this ongoing news story.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
First and foremost, CNN reveals the plans for sanctions that will occur against Iran if it does not agree to comply with the rules and conditions set forth by the international community which are mainly to reveal with what intentions this plant was built with, a full investigative search of the facility, and if found to be created for harmful (i.e. nuclear weapons) means, its ultimate destruction. For now America and other powers use sanctions (on banking and equipment and technology for Iran’s oil and gas industry) as their main tool to threaten Iran into cooperating. However, the report fails to mention the actual effectiveness that this technique will offer especially since sanctions such as this have not really proved to be too successful in the past with communist nations like Cuba, China and North Korea. It also makes it appear as if the powers of the world fully support Obama and his government’s decision. Russia, for example, may not be so keen on these sanctions as they depend on Iran for their oil needs.

ANALSYIS
Yet again, America is illustrated as knowing what is best for the state of the world. I do not attempt to refute their “good” intentions but I just want to note that CNN always depicts its country as the primary voice for all other nations. If I compare this with my last posting, the BBC audio podcast, it is clear that the podcast focused more on what the leaders of other countries had to say, while this report remains more focused on U.S. senators, political leaders, people in power, etc. Chomsky would therefore argue that the first filter (size, orientation and ownership of the mass meda) is at play here for it is serving the interests of the dominant elite by strictly focusing on their stance. These people in power, or ‘elite thinkers,’ work to serve and act on behalf of the common good (i.e. disarming Iran).

To reiterate from the last posting: Matheson and Chomsky analyze how linguistics and semiotics work to shape rhetoric. They would thus argue that the rhetorical use of diction, grammar and tone sensationalizes the events in this article to evoke a particular reaction from the reader. Matheson argues in his Discourse Analytic Perspective that a close analysis of the discourse used in a particular headline creates meaning that is not directly transparent. If we deconstruct the meaning of the title into its linguistic formula (word choice, grammer) and the preconceived notions of the media consumer, we begin to understand the particular social reality that is being reinforced. The intended reaction would be to stigmatize Iran while constructing an image of the U.S. as diplomats; hence the title (“U.S. to Iran: Prove your nuclear program is peaceful”) that has an authoritative tone to it and paints a black and white picture of the US and Iran encompassing the latter and former respectively. Clearly, the article seeks to portray the US as being diplomatic (very similar to the BBC podcast) and willing to undergo peaceful negotiations even though the terms of this new uranium enrichment facility are still vague. Matheson also speaks about labels which are as he explains “the act of labeling a person (or group or thing) defines how members of the society can understand and judge any action done by that person and allows them to generalize about them.” The article is essentially assigning labels to US and Iran (good vs. evil) since it sorts these nations into quite rigid social categories and compresses so much meaning into one word.


CNN did voice the opinion of Iran officials by quoting the director of the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency, but the overwhelming majority of viewpoints centered on the beliefs of the state, which essentially diluted Iran’s argument. It is quite clear that the propaganda model is at work here, specifically the first filter, “size, ownership, and profit orientation of the mass media.” Not one reputable American news source would dare to support Iran in this heavy debate for fears of heavier powers delivering blows to them mainly affecting their profits. In future posts, I will make sure to visit an Iranian media news agency to see their viewpoints on the issue.


Overall, Iran is being depicted as being and having always been non-compliant (i.e. race is represented as rebellious, an outsider). The news report goes on to describe how in the past Iran has always been ‘shady’ when it came to discussing its nuclear program. It is interesting to note that the United States actually knew of the previously secret Iranian enrichment plant before Iran reported its existence to the IAEA. This makes us question why the States would not have revealed it when they had first found out. Thus, the U.S. government is also being quite secretive in its own respect and the report fails to specify why the government chose to reveal it when it did. The only answer they provide the public with is one that kind of beats around the bush and does not give a clear response, “they wanted to make this news public at a time that would yield them most political gain”. If this was such a ‘serious threat’ why would the States risk the entire world’s safety for political gain? That is just simply and utterly irresponsible and the CNN chooses to stray away from actually questioning the authority of their government.


Barthes speaks of the denotation and connotation of photographs. The sole picture that accompanies the news story is that of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The first order of signification is denotation, or objective association, that readers would make with the image. Based solely on the visual and a pre-existing knowledge, the association one makes would be that she is an elderly woman. However, the symbolic association (2nd order of signification) and connection that the media consumer of the article would make with her image is that of high power, affluence and authority (ideological connotation). Hamilton would thus argue that there is subjective representation inherent in this news article. Again, it is clear that the article is stressing the importance and influence of the viewpoints of those in power by choosing to insert a picture of Hilary Clinton as opposed to any others (e.g. picture of the actual uranium enrichment facility).

Overall, this specific news venue is inherently biased due to the way they narrowly represent the United States and its people in power. CNN concentrates too much on the righteous interests of its own nation and does not go to any lengths to reveal how other countries feel about this matter. Instead, they make a faulty generalization by making it appear as if all other countries feel the same way.

West demand’s Iran’s nuclear compliance

Source: BBC World Service Global News, audio podcast
on 25 Sep 2009

The BBC World Services prides itself on "providing the best stories, interviews and on the spot reporting from around the world." Since this news service is politically independent, non-profit and commercial-free, it can be strongly argued that it also takes an objective standpoint on all issues as it has no obligation to serve any specific commercial or elite interests. This however, can also be debated.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The report describes how the leaders of the United States, France and Britain have threatened further sanctions against Iran over its secret building of its second uranium enrichment plant- a key component of advanced nuclear weapons. Iran must show its willingness to cooperate fully with the United Nations nuclear watch dog the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). As Obama states, the IAEA is expected to investigate this “disturbing” information and to report to the IAEA board of governors.

ANAYLSIS
Matheson and Chomsky analyze how linguistics and semiotics work to shape rhetoric. They would thus argue that the rhetorical use of diction, grammar and tone sensationalizes the events in this report to evoke a particular reaction from the reader. Matheson argues in his Discourse Analytic Perspective that a close analysis of the discourse used in a particular headline creates meaning that is not directly transparent. If we deconstruct the meaning of the title into its linguistic formula (word choice, grammer) and the preconceived notions of the media consumer, we begin to understand the particular social reality that is being reinforced. The intended reaction would be to create an image of the West, and more specifically the US, as diplomatic and consequentially portray Iran as undiplomatic and non-compliant; hence the title (“West Demand’s Iran’s Nuclear Compliance”) that has an authoritative tone to it and paints an US vs. THEM picture. Clearly, the podcast seeks to depict the US as an omnipotent force through the use of such words as 'demand' that makes it appear as if the West is leaving little room for negotiations.

A speech by President Obama and the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is incorporated within this news report and it helps to set an authentic and authorial tone. Obama’s actions and words go a long way in showing his determination and sincerity in controlling the spread of and/or halting global nuclear defense systems. The news tends to inseminate fear and anger into the minds of the public when it comes to the topic of nuclear weapons (e.g. Iraq war). Their choice of words is also indicative of the importance of the issue at hand and stresses the need for immediate change. Examples of words used include threatening, disturbing, serial deception, shock, anger and condemnation. Many of these words would be categorized as active words under the lexical map suggesting the urgency of the issue. Matheson would say that "the lexis calls up our background knowledge of widespread societal fears" about growing concerns over the possibility of nuclear warfare. Thus, the primary discourse in regards to nuclear arms is that it must be highly controlled and/or stopped altogether as it is a threat to all mankind.


Although, the BBC does remain objective there are still no doubt filters working to shape this news story. The nuclear arms story in relation to Iran relates to Chomsky’s idea of democracy and The Propaganda Model. Chomsky would say that the public is generally excluded from managing foreign affairs and the means of information are kept under tight control. It seems as if a lot of information is kept hidden from both the media and subsequently the people as the BBC does not seem able to provide further information on this issue except for the cold facts and biased speeches. The third filter (sourcing mass-media news) in particular is at play here for it seems as if BBC journalists have decided to use the agenda of the US government as an information source. It heavily relies on the statements of US officials for an overwhelming majority of the news report due to economic necessity (i.e. does not have the resources to dig deeper on this issue and due their own investigative reports) and a reciprocity of interest. This report does make every attempt to show all perspectives on the issue at hand by voicing both sides which are mainly those of the unified United Sates, France and Britain (international community) against Iran (note: BBC makes a comment on behalf of Iranian representatives). By suggesting “international support”, the podcast is making a faulty generalization, that many other nations are on par with the US on this issue. Really, the degree of international support is not yet apparent.

Audio podcasts are a great source of news and I personally rely on the BBC GlobalNews service for my daily news dosage. News is represented differently on this particular platform because there are no images to go along with what you are listening to. Therefore, the power of imagination comes into play and you can argue that people draw different conclusions then the ones they would normally formulate by getting a visual (e.g. people are not swayed by ghastly images of war and destruction). It will be interesting to see how news regarding nuclear compliance will differ on different platforms that I will be examining in future posts.