Sunday, April 08, 2007

Cost Of A Telegraph Headline - One Shilling

there's a headline from the UK's Daily Telegraph which is sending American extreme Right bloggers into orgasmic warlust this morning - "Buoyant Teheran warns of further kidnappings". The concoction below that headline begins "Hardliners in the Iranian regime have warned that the seizure of British naval personnel demonstrates that they can make trouble for the West whenever they want to and do so with impunity."

How many hardliners?

Well, one.
Conservative parliamentarian Amir Hassankhani, a former member of the country's Revolutionary Guard and supporter of the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told the country's semi-official Fars news agency: "The arrest and release of the British sailors proved that if Iran's issues and demands are overlooked at the international level, the Islamic republic can create different challenges for the other side."
And while the Telegraph may be right in its claim that this guy is a friend of Ahmadinehad, a claim for which it provides no evidence, it is clear from what other newspapers have written that this opinion is hardly the majority one, or even the official line, in Terheran.

Take for example the Washington Times cite of the same quote the day before:
Iran's official line is that the British sailors and marines were seized for violating Iran's territorial waters, but some lawmakers in Tehran said the government was intent on making a larger point.
Amir Hassankhani, a conservative member of the Iranian parliament, told the Fars News Agency that the crisis showed Iran was a power whose interests could not be ignored. "The arrest and release of the British sailors proved that if Iran's issues and demands are overlooked at the international level, the Islamic republic can create different challenges for the other side," Mr. Hassankhani said. [Emphasis mine - C]
Or how about India's The Hindu?:
In sharp contrast, the mood in Tehran was of reconciliation, a day after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the release of the sailors. The Iranian website Baztab, which is run by the Mohsen Rezai, a former revolutionary guards commander, highlighted the President's remarks during the Wednesday's press conference that reconciliation with the U.S. was possible in case Washington altered its behaviour towards Tehran.

The Fars news agency also stressed upon his assertion that Iran was seeking friendly ties with all countries except Israel.

However, some Iranian parliamentarians warned the Western powers that the arrest and release of the British soldiers showed that Iran was capable of defending its rights. "[The] arrest and release of the British sailors proved that if Iran's issues and demands are overlooked at the international level, the Islamic Republic can create different challenges for the other side," said an Iranian MP Amir Hassankhani.[Again, emphasis mine - C]
Clearly the quoted parliamentarian is not even in the majority in Iran's parliament, let alone speaking for that nation's leadership.

And that's it. One hardliner who doesn't speak for the regime and who doesn't even mention the words "further kidnappings". That's the Telegraph's justification for such a headline. Unsurprisingly, Phil Sherwell was involved in this fine example of a shill for the "war with Iran" lobby.

But people like Jules Crittenden - who is a journalist and so should know better - and AJ Strata - who will never know better - duly jumped on the bandwagon.

So that's the cost of a headline in the once-respected daily Telegraph nowadays - one shilling for war.

Update Shilling for the war lobby or just sloppy journalism? Poliblog has another prime example, this time from the AP who announce that "al-Sadr calls for attacks on US troops". In comments at Poliblog, Jim Henley from Unqualified Offerings notes that the statement attributed to al-Sadr "is either an incredibly indirect way of calling for attacks, OR it’s not a call for attacks at all, OR there are more explicit passages the article didn’t bother to quote. If it’s the last, it’s really sloppy journalism."

No comments: