« OutFOXing the Republicans on USSC: a Fein float? | Profco's Blog | Iran: What if they don't want the bomb? »
Haaretz on Iran talks: A Case Study in Spin
No sooner is it announced that two former AIPAC lobbyists, Steven Rosen and Kenneth Weissman, aren't going to
be prosecuted for espionage for transmitting classified documents to an Israeli operative, than a "classified report" is allegedly leaked to
Jerusalem that reveals who is in charge of U.S. policy towards Iran and what the US
timetable is.
Or perhaps not.
Haaretz has published a story on it website by correspondent Barak Ravid under the headline "U.S. Puts October deadline on Iran Talks." It's a case study in spin.
The United States has set October as its target for completing the first round of talks with Iran on its nuclear program, according to confidential reports sent to Jerusalem.
While the headline claims that the US has a fall "deadline" for coming to terms with Iran, the article itself says that there is an October "target date" for the completion of a "first stage" of talks about its nuclear program. There's a big difference between a target date and a deadline. Furthermore, the "target date" is for the first stage of what is anticipated as one of several in a longer process of rapprochement in which other stages are anticipated.
Next, this puzzling paragraph:
Several days ago, Jerusalem received a classified notice reporting on a meeting between a senior European official and the special U.S. envoy on Iran, Dennis Ross. The telegram stated that Ross said this autumn, probably October, was the target date for concluding the first round of talks.
A report? A notice? A telegram? A telegram about a report? A classified telegram about a report? A telegram about a classified report? This is the journalistic equivalent of those Russian mamushka nesting dolls....a story about a telegram about a report about a meeting.
Several days ago, Ross visited Egypt and several Persian Gulf countries for talks on Iran's nuclear program. Washington has not informed Israel of its plans. So far, Israel has heard about developments between the U.S. and Iran secondhand, via European sources.
Hmmm...an interesting challenge to accusation/boast that Israeli sympathizers are running US foreign policy.
Reading on:
A political source in Jerusalem said information received so far suggests that the Americans are interested in dialogue with Iran in the near future and plan to hold four to five months of talks.
A "political source in Jerusalem" could be anyone from President Peres to a taxi driver. This is hardly news.
Why is this story a case study in spin?
Any one sentence, taken out of context, might appear to have enormous ramifications about a definitive decision or shift in U.S. policy concerning Iran. Taken together, however, they reveal little except some self-important smoke and mirrors polished off with a jingoistic headline. What all too often, happens, unfortunately, is that a single sentence will become its own story: "Haaretz reports that [insert selected sentence here]. It is clearly intended to do diplomatic mischief while saying nothing of substance at all.
All in all, it is a rather silly story that is much ado about nothing. Nevertheless, it has already been picked up and disseminated across the internet, particularly the blogosphere, both under the current headline or what appears to have been its earlier caption: "US Report: First Round of Iran Talks by October." It appears on the Lebanese Hezbollah news site Al Manar and the Iran Labour News Agency. (ILNA leave out the second sentence of the Haaretz story, which indirectly quotes Israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman as telling his German counterpart that Iran must not be allowed to continue stalling for time on its nuclear program. Particularly hilarious is the right wing, pro-settler Israel National News rewrite, which not only claims ominously that "the hourglass will run out in October" (I think of Judy Garland as Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz:) but gives it the headline "US Quietly Sets Deadline for Iran." So quietly that WE HAVE TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW!
The main reason it is not yet in the US and European MSM probably has to do with timing: no doubt it will be ubiquitous tomorrow. Or perhaps the story might actually be recognized for what it is: not news at all, but rather a yawn, useful only as a case study in spin.
Or perhaps not.
Haaretz has published a story on it website by correspondent Barak Ravid under the headline "U.S. Puts October deadline on Iran Talks." It's a case study in spin.
U.S. puts October deadline on Iran talks
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
The United States has set October as its target for completing the first round of talks with Iran on its nuclear program, according to confidential reports sent to Jerusalem.
While the headline claims that the US has a fall "deadline" for coming to terms with Iran, the article itself says that there is an October "target date" for the completion of a "first stage" of talks about its nuclear program. There's a big difference between a target date and a deadline. Furthermore, the "target date" is for the first stage of what is anticipated as one of several in a longer process of rapprochement in which other stages are anticipated.
Next, this puzzling paragraph:
Several days ago, Jerusalem received a classified notice reporting on a meeting between a senior European official and the special U.S. envoy on Iran, Dennis Ross. The telegram stated that Ross said this autumn, probably October, was the target date for concluding the first round of talks.
A report? A notice? A telegram? A telegram about a report? A classified telegram about a report? A telegram about a classified report? This is the journalistic equivalent of those Russian mamushka nesting dolls....a story about a telegram about a report about a meeting.
Several days ago, Ross visited Egypt and several Persian Gulf countries for talks on Iran's nuclear program. Washington has not informed Israel of its plans. So far, Israel has heard about developments between the U.S. and Iran secondhand, via European sources.
Hmmm...an interesting challenge to accusation/boast that Israeli sympathizers are running US foreign policy.
Reading on:
A political source in Jerusalem said information received so far suggests that the Americans are interested in dialogue with Iran in the near future and plan to hold four to five months of talks.
A "political source in Jerusalem" could be anyone from President Peres to a taxi driver. This is hardly news.
Why is this story a case study in spin?
Any one sentence, taken out of context, might appear to have enormous ramifications about a definitive decision or shift in U.S. policy concerning Iran. Taken together, however, they reveal little except some self-important smoke and mirrors polished off with a jingoistic headline. What all too often, happens, unfortunately, is that a single sentence will become its own story: "Haaretz reports that [insert selected sentence here]. It is clearly intended to do diplomatic mischief while saying nothing of substance at all.
All in all, it is a rather silly story that is much ado about nothing. Nevertheless, it has already been picked up and disseminated across the internet, particularly the blogosphere, both under the current headline or what appears to have been its earlier caption: "US Report: First Round of Iran Talks by October." It appears on the Lebanese Hezbollah news site Al Manar and the Iran Labour News Agency. (ILNA leave out the second sentence of the Haaretz story, which indirectly quotes Israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman as telling his German counterpart that Iran must not be allowed to continue stalling for time on its nuclear program. Particularly hilarious is the right wing, pro-settler Israel National News rewrite, which not only claims ominously that "the hourglass will run out in October" (I think of Judy Garland as Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz:) but gives it the headline "US Quietly Sets Deadline for Iran." So quietly that WE HAVE TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW!
The main reason it is not yet in the US and European MSM probably has to do with timing: no doubt it will be ubiquitous tomorrow. Or perhaps the story might actually be recognized for what it is: not news at all, but rather a yawn, useful only as a case study in spin.
Advertisement
There's even more -- and worse -- spin in the Haaretz story than you point out.
For example, it baldly states that Iran has not yet responded to the Western offer of dialogue. But two weeks ago, Reuters reported:
"Iran's chief nuclear negotiator spoke with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana after the Islamic Republic said it was ready for talks with six world powers, Iranian media and EU officials said Thursday.
"A spokeswoman for Solana said he and Iran's Saeed Jalili discussed organizing an expert-level meeting on the long-running dispute over Tehran's nuclear program."
Haaretz is one Israeli news source I tend to trust, but this level of outright distortion is beyond the pale.
May 10, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're quite correct. There were numerous other flaws in the article. As someone who incessantly monitors what Israel and Iran say about each other and how they say it, there are many things I take for granted as "normal"! For example, a great many comments on dealing with the "Iranian Threat" (given its own section, identified as such on the Jerusalem Post, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and AIPAC websites), especially the nuclear issue, are attributed to unidentifiable sources (e.g. "senior European diplomat") speaking on condition of anonymity. The significance of everything "Iran" (a very politically diverse polity) says or doesn't say is blown out of proportion in the Israeli media. If it's at all positive,even potentially (from a US perspective), it is derided and its credibility attacked. If it's negative, it's gleefully embraced as a vindication of Israeli skepticism. The idea that some Iranian politicians shoot off their mouths and say some rather ridiculous things, just as Israeli (and American) politicians do, is never even considered as a possibility.
May 11, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink