The Western Lens on Iranian Elections

The Western Lens on Iranian Elections 2012

While the United States presidential elections dominate the Western media's attention, another influential 2012 election took place in Iran three weeks ago. In its first vote since the contentious 2009 election, Iran faces an economic crisis from within and international animosity due to its nuclear program. While a strong government is critical during this sensitive time, Iran's leadership is becoming increasingly factionalized. Iran's two state authorities - Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad - are pitted against one another in a bitter struggle for power while the opposition Reformist party is condemned to the sidelines. In the media's coverage of this intricate political situation, the facets that it chooses to represent tend to say more about the who is covering the event than the event itself. An analysis of the journalistic decisions made by The New York Times and The Guardian reflect biases that vary with the changing times, but ultimately are rooted in each country's historical relationship with the Middle East.

In January 2012, the Middle East was experiencing a wave of revolutionary protests by various populations against the regimes in power. These events, collectively known as Arab Spring, generated hope for new governments that would be sympathetic to Western interests. The media's coverage of the Iranian election reflected Western optimism for the people's ability to change the political landscape. "'You might think that the reformists are eliminated from politics,'" Ahmad Salamation tells The Guardian, "but look at the uprisings in the Middle East and you'd realize those who have taken power now, were the people who were absent for their dictators last elections.'" The commentator evokes the recent revolutionary tendency in the region, and expresses hope that the opposition party will follow suit. The New York Times coverage takes on a similar perspective, as this revolutionary narrative plays well into American liberal ideals and also suggests potential for a more sympathetic government.

The history of United States-Iran relations sheds light on the underlying motives behind this revolutionary support. In 1953, the CIA organized a coup d'etat against Prime Minister Muhammad Mussadiq - a strong voice of Iranian nationalism (especially with regard to British control over the country's oil resources) and a potential communist sympathizer. After Mussadiq was deposed, power became firmly concentrated within the Shah, who was known to be sympathetic to American interest. During the 1979 revolution, however, America took an ambiguous stance as the Iranian people fought against the injustice of the America-friendly Shah. While America presents itself as the international defender of liberal ideals, its support is often motivated by the protection of its own interest. With both of Iran's leaders firm antagonistic stance towards the West, American support for alternative leadership is unsurprising.

The promise of the opposition is also reflected by the special attention that the Western media gives to the harsh suppression of journalists and bloggers. On January 26, The New York Times devoted an entire article to the arrests of two female Iranian journalists, painting a vivid picture of their injustice though in-depth descriptions of their backgrounds. This served to humanize the Iranian people, who are usually either ignored or maligned as being hateful towards the West. Another component of this issue highlighted by both The Guardian and The New York Times was the importance of social media and technology. "Some speculated that they were arrested because they knew how to navigate their way around the Internet and transmit information to their circle of friends abroad."iv This depiction of the repressed journalists reaching out to American interests makes them more sympathetic to American readers. The World Wide Web serves as a bridge between Middle East and the West. Through January, there is an unusual kindness towards the Iranian people, however, this was soon to change as a result of current events.

Between January and March, threats were flying back and forth between the United States, Israel and Iran--all countries affirming the possibility of military intervention. As hotheaded Republican presidential candidates called for a more serious American response, and Obama declared Iran's nuclear program "unacceptable," the Western media's treatment of the upcoming election corresponded with this change.

The New York Times shifted its focus from concern for the Iranian population to the American reaction. During this period, the paper emphasized the anti-West sentiment espoused by politicians in order to get voters out to the polls. The provocatively titled "Iran Invokes the West to Motivate Voters" begins, "Ayatollah Ali Khameini and other top officials have been crisscrossing their country to issue stern warnings against a vast Western conspiracy." While the election is supposed to represent the diverse views of the Iranian people, through the medias filter the West has become the primary issue. The journalist gives weight to inflammatory statements by Iranian leaders, "'Ayatollah Ali Khamenei...assured the electorate that the poll would represent 'yet another firm slap in the face of world arrogance.''" This particularly violent imagery illustrates how the voice of Iranian leaders are used to generate fear rather than shed light about their political stance. Furthermore, American interests consistently frame analysis of the election. "[The election is] not likely to have any bearing over issues most relevant to the West, like the efforts to reach a diplomatic compromise on Iran's nuclear program,". The journalist is dismisses the decisive power of this election, as it will have little bearing on Americans themselves.

In these days before the election, the people of Iran are barely represented by the media. While this election had the potential to drastically affect domestic policy, the only time that the people were mentioned was in relation to voter turnout. This attention, however,