It is widely believed that millions of Iranian voters had their votes stolen during June’s Presidential election. Now, once again, the Iranian people had their votes taken away when Time Magazine awarded Ben Bernanke the honor of Person of the Year.The bottom line is that Time Magazine just doesn't get it:
For those of you who, like me, were are upset that Time didn’t choose the Iranian protesters as their person of the year, there is some consolation knowing that the rest of the world did.
In fact, more than 536,000 people recognized their courage and votes for the Iranian protesters outnumbered the 2nd and 3rd runners up combined. Despite that, it was disheartening to see them eliminated from Time’s shortlist which appeared on Tuesday, a day before announcing their final choice of Ben Bernanke. (See the full results here).
Perhaps Time didn’t realize the impact that this award could have had for the Iranian people. While I’m sure Bernanke is happy about his award and perhaps it will put pressure on him to really fix the economy this time the impact of the award for the Iranian people would have been much more tangible. Honoring them would have shown Iran that the world is still watching; as a result, putting pressure on the government to reform its behavior. The Iranian people want to be part of the international community, but how can they, especially if we fail to recognize them?Read the whole thing.
Time is not solely to blame; in fact, this Person of the Year episode is symptomatic of most media—in the words of one disappointed protester “typical short memory Americans.”
The Iranian people have shown us that the Green movement is not just a trend. They’ve shown their ingenuity as they’ve turned insults into rallying points, (see the campaign to free Majid Tavakoli), money into organizing flyers and they continue to break Iranian government’s internet filters to keep us informed of their activities.
Won’t we at least do them the honor by paying attention longer than a few weeks?
I suppose it could have been worse: Time could have named former Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya as Person of the Year.
Technorati Tag: Time Magazine and Person of the Year.
I don't know. So far, there's no evidence that Iranian elections were unfair. Ahmadinejad still has a strong support among iranians, no matter you like it or not.
ReplyDeleteActually, there is evidence the Iranian elections were rigged--"no matter you like it or not"
ReplyDeleteI afraid I need some more evidence than just Professor Ali Ansari's thoughts and questions. I'm not saying the elections were not controversial, but hey, so were the Bush's first ones. Remember all those missing votes and Florida mafia stories back then? But he still won. And so did mr Ahmadinejad.
ReplyDeleteThe only difference of course being that there was an open investigation into the American election, while no such thing existed in the case of Iran where they prefer to imprison people--and do who knows what else to them.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, your suggestion that a country that mistreats its people can conduct fair elections is a novel one.
I see your point, but I still have a feeling that if the winner of Iranian election was some, say, more pro-wastern candidat, then nobody would've been questioning it. Just like the latest Afghanistan controversial elections. Karzai may not be perfect, but he's still pretty good choice for America and NATO, so they had to made sure he won, no matter how. Because Karzai is different than Ahmadinejad. Not to mention many many different controversial elections in Africa, Saudi Arabia or Asia, where the world police - the U.S. - keep ignoring all the doubts and critics on the elections as long as they like the winner. Double standards? Yes, we could say so.
ReplyDeleteBut the whole criticism of the US was exactly the opposite--that the US was slow to respond and lukewarm in it's criticism of the election, much to the chagrin of those who protested.
ReplyDeleteUS even went so far as to allow funds for Human Rights groups to dry up.
Yes, the current president (Obama) is indeed showing some changes in dealing with countries like Iran or NKorea, which is good in my opinion. Why should america interfere to other countries? Anyway, if you looked at the last 30 years, you'd see that I was right about double standards. The latest Afghanistan example is still "fresh".
ReplyDeleteReturning to Iran, I believe that a big part of "protesters" are in fact backed by foreign secret services. They want regieme change. But I think any "change" directed by the CIA would NOT become a change for the better.
Moreover, I think that all those news about "big protests" and "unfair election" in Iran should not be taken too seriously. Having said that, I'm not saying they're all lies, I just don't think they're all true.
I especially don't believe the numbers. Remember Romania in Ceausescu era? During the course of the revolution the western press published estimates of the number of people killed by the Securitate in supporting Ceauşescu. The count increased rapidly until an estimated 64,000 (!!) fatalities were widely reported across front pages. After Ceauşescu's death hospitals across the country reported an actual death toll of less than one thousand (!!), and probably much lower than that (source: wiki). One should be aware of that possibility. Never doubt the power of the press! And never believe everything you read in media or blogs. Anyway, that's why I'm so sceptical to those news from Iran.
Why should america interfere to other countries? Anyway, if you looked at the last 30 years, you'd see that I was right about double standards. The latest Afghanistan example is still "fresh".
ReplyDeleteSo the US should have just left Bin Laden and Afghanistan alone, to plan more terrorist attacks and murder more civilians?
And Iran is to be trusted with nuclear power, with the threats that Ahmadinejad has made?
Returning to Iran, I believe that a big part of "protesters" are in fact backed by foreign secret services.
Any basis to that, besides the fact that this is what the Iranian leaders want you to think?
I think that all those news about "big protests" and "unfair election" in Iran should not be taken too seriously.
Why not?
Is the history of Iran since the kidnapping of Americans 30+ years ago indicative of a government that conforms to rule of law???
I especially don't believe the numbers. Remember Romania in Ceausescu era? During the course of the revolution the western press published estimates of the number of people killed by the Securitate in supporting Ceauşescu. The count increased rapidly until an estimated 64,000 (!!) fatalities were widely reported across front pages. After Ceauşescu's death hospitals across the country reported an actual death toll of less than one thousand (!!), and probably much lower than that (source: wiki). One should be aware of that possibility. Never doubt the power of the press! And never believe everything you read in media or blogs. Anyway, that's why I'm so sceptical to those news from Iran.
Great! The obvious solution is to have an open society with easy access by the press.
Does Iran allow that--or have they consistently done whatever they can to block media coverage???
Why?
-So the US should have just left Bin Laden and Afghanistan alone, to plan more terrorist attacks and murder more civilians? -- I never said that. I was actually refering to the latest elections there and to America's unlimited support for Karzai, just because he's a "puppet president".
ReplyDelete-And Iran is to be trusted with nuclear power, with the threats that Ahmadinejad has made? --- Nuclear power? Sure. Every country has a right to peaceful nuclear power. I also don't know what "threats" are you talking about. Ahmadinejad was misunderstood and mistranslated for many times. Western media claimed that he threat Israel with destruction, while in reality he said: "Imam said this occupying regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of times." Be aware that "Occupying regime in Jerusalem " does not refer to the state of Israel. Later he also told that "Israel will cease to exist like USSR". So Iran never threated Israel with an attack. On the other hand, Israel did threat them many times.
-Any basis to that, besides the fact that this is what the Iranian leaders want you to think? --- I can't be totaly sure, but history is saying that I'm probably right. Romania was a great example. Of course you'll never read about that in Western media, at least not for some years. Those things are secrets. But you should know that CIA is everywhere and is involved in things you'd never thought of. For example, yesterday I heard on TV that Lithuania hosted secret CIA prison. It came as a big surprise for Lithuanians and the rest of the Europe.
-The obvious solution is to have an open society with easy access by the press. --- That's a good idea. I'm really not happy with Iranian's gov't's intolerance of free press. I agree with you there and I hope countries like Iran or China will get freedom of press soon enough. However, in a situation that we have today, I'd still rather be sceptical than to believe all those amateur Iranian pro-American and anti-regime bloggers and twitters. I'm not saying thaey're all lying - I just think they're overreacting. Especially those anti-regime Iranians living in exile, who're blogging about things like: "My friend from Iran told me there was X thousants of protesters in the streets..." I mean it's always easy to claim things without giving actual evidence or credible source.
-And Iran is to be trusted with nuclear power, with the threats that Ahmadinejad has made? --- Nuclear power? Sure. Every country has a right to peaceful nuclear power. I also don't know what "threats" are you talking about. Ahmadinejad was misunderstood and mistranslated for many times. Western media claimed that he threat Israel with destruction, while in reality he said: "Imam said this occupying regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of times." Be aware that "Occupying regime in Jerusalem " does not refer to the state of Israel. Later he also told that "Israel will cease to exist like USSR". So Iran never threated Israel with an attack. On the other hand, Israel did threat them many times.
ReplyDeleteAhmadinejad was mistranslated? By his own translators??
If Mr. Steele and Mr. Cole are right, not one word of the quotation — Israel should be wiped off the map — is accurate.
But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say "wipe off" or "wipe away" is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Of course you'll never read about that in Western media, at least not for some years.
So you're saying the Iranian media is honest--especially when reporting on the election and the protests? It is not merely a question of a free press, but of a truthful one.
I mean it's always easy to claim things without giving actual evidence or credible source.
You mean like the pictures and videos of the mass protests?
As I said, Ahmadinejad was often misunderstood and mistranslated. I'm not an expert, so I can't tell who's right; is it Juan Cole or Namazi. However, I watched Ahmadinejad's interviews with American reporters and TV hosts (like Larry King show) where he described what did he actually mean. His statement "Israel will cease to exist like USSR" tells a lot. There was no threats, only predictions. You can find some of those videos on youtube if you're interested - I think it'd change your mind a bit.
ReplyDelete-So you're saying the Iranian media is honest--especially when reporting on the election and the protests? It is not merely a question of a free press, but of a truthful one. --- I'm not saying the Iranian media is always honest, because we all know Iranian leadership's intolerance of free press. But I don't believe evry word all those exiled anti-Iranian bloggers write, either. That's all what I'm trying to say. Neither "side" is objective and totaly trustable, because either side has its own motives involved. Pro-regime media will always try to downplay the protests, they will talk about western involvement and will keep saying there's no political crisis. On the other side, anti-regime and pro-american exiled iranians will always try to exaggregate in their words; they're saying that Ahmadinejad has got no support, that the Iranian regime is about to collapse anytime now, etc. I guess the truth is somewhere in between.
I guess the truth is somewhere in between.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, but that leaves an awful lot of room in-between.