Our manipulated media: Check out Iran's response to Obama as reported here & in Arab world.

[EFerrari]

Hissyspit posted this VOA story in LBN:

Iran's Supreme Leader Dismisses Obama's Appeal
By Edward Yeranian
Cairo
21 March 2009

Iran's supreme leader is dismissing calls from U.S. President Barack Obama for a "new beginning" in relations between the two countries.

Speaking in the holy city of Mashhad Saturday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the United States is using "the slogan of change," but that he sees no real change in U.S. policy toward Iran.

Change in rhetoric alone is not enough, he said, and even then we haven't seen much change in vocabulary. Change, he insists, must be authentic.

"We must tell the American leadership that the change is talking about is a must," he said. "There is no choice, you must change, because God's divine conduct will change you. The world will change you."

In a videotaped message to the Iranian people, Mr. Obama said Friday he is committed to diplomacy to address "serious differences" between the United States and Iran.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-03-21-voa6.cfm

Now, watch the same story as reported in Dubai. It's the very first story (video clip with good English translation):

http://www.linktv.org/mosaic

:shrug:

[VermeerLives]

1. And just why should we be suprised by Iran's response??

This is exactly what I would expect from that regime. It only sees conciliatory gestures as weakness.

[EFerrari]

3. You didn't watch the video clip. Go watch it if you can.

The response was not negative at all.

[zbdent]

15. must be sad ... selling your

(vermeerlives') soul for 10 cents a post ...

[cliffordu]

16. They've had some setbacks....It's a nickle now....

[Delphinus]

13. Did you listen to the interview?

It was not at all in the same tone as what was written in the first one.

[mudesi]

24. LOL. Did You Even Read The SUBJECT LINE Of The OP?!

:rofl:

[960]

2. Gee, who would have thought that Iran is nuts and that direct pre level "discussions" with them

are naive and won't solve anything?

[EFerrari]

4. You didn't watch the clip either. Can you?

Their response was not negative.

[960]

5. I did watch it, and it says the same thing.

to paraphrase what the Dubai report says: "Iran says do what we want and we'll talk, otherwise don't bother"

[leftstreet]

9. That's not at all what it says

Are you sure you watched the right clip?

:shrug:

[960]

11. yeah. I'm sure. What message did you get from Iran?

[leftstreet]

14. Iran and the US can haz DiPloMacy

And they welcome it!

[EFerrari]

19. Transcript down thread now.

:)

[EFerrari]

10. Nope. It said it may take a while to sort out a complicated relationship

It was nothing like the cr@p from VOA. It was positive, noting that Obama was using the language of diplomacy, not force, unlike Bush. It ended on a positive note, too.

[G_j]

7. frustrating, isn't it?

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

22. How are they going to keep us down on the farm

now that we have the internets? :)

[G_j]

30. exactly! nt

[mudesi]

25. LOL. Did You Even Read The SUBJECT LINE Of The OP?!

:rofl:

[scarletwoman]

6. Is it possible to post at least a partial transcription of the clip?

Obviously, people aren't clicking on it, and I won't click on it because it would probably take at least 2 or 3 hours to download on my dialup. But I'd really like to know at least the gist of what's on it.

In solidarity,
sw

[EFerrari]

12. I can try.

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

17. Thank you! I see you have some other help showing up, too.

:hi:

I'm so fucking sick of DUers defending U.S. imperialism!

Loveya,
sw

[EFerrari]

20. Transcript just below!

(It's a good thing I don't do this for a living now. I'd starve! lol )

[leftstreet]

8. What an amazing difference

Thanks for posting this.

"dismissing calls" my ass.

[EFerrari]

21. I predict the American media will get even worse

while Obama is in office. :shrug:

[G_j]

23. didn't think they could get worse, but they have.. nt

[EFerrari]

18. PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT: Obama's Iran gesture may take time to show results

Teheran responded quickly to Obama's offer of a new beginning, one that includes diplomatic dialogue between the two countries. Iran welcomed Obama's offer but asked him to do something tangible to fix previous American mistakes.

Obama made an offer yesterday in a message to the Iranian leaders and people on the occasion of the Iranian Naruz (sp?) holiday. He called for putting decades of American policy towards Iran behind them.

(Clip of Obama here)

The message of the American president, Barack Obama, to the Iranian people and leadership, marks a new phase in the complicated and entangled American-Iranian relationship. During the last three decades, relations between the two countries have fluctuated (here, a historical review re the Shah, the revolution and how we always maintained a secret relationship with the leaders in Iran).

However, American Iranian relations continue to change over time, depending on the American administration in Washington as well as the dominant force in the Islamic Republic of Iran at a particular time. Former Iranian President, reformer Katami who used to be calm at least in the tone of his speeches changed the policy of Iran from confrontation to seeking dialogue between the two countries. However, the return of American Republicans who were influenced by neo conservative ideologies coincided with the return of conservatives inside Iran, as marked by the arrival of President MA. Differences over Iran's nuclear program peaked just before George Bush left the White House -- which left a stain on the relationship of the two countries.

Today, President Barack Obama is trying to open a dialogue with Teheran which reflects his determination to change US relations with Iran. Instead of using the language of force, he has decided to use the language of diplomacy, hoping the Iranians and the Americans can come to the table and negotiate. It seems that the common interests between the two countries is greater than their differences.

[scarletwoman]

36. Thank you! Doesn't sound all that "dismissive" to me. Sounds rather thoughtful.

Noncommittal, to be sure, but not at all "dismissive".

Diplomacy is a formal dance with many complex moves. Iran, being the party to whom the greater wrong has been done, is bound to respond with a certain coyness, it's to be expected.

sw

[Occam Bandage]

40. sw, I don't really understand.

Iran welcomed Obama's offer but asked him to do something tangible to fix previous American mistakes is all they have reported on Tehran's response. (The rest is the station providing a background on US-Iranian relationships) Given that all the Dubai news clip has provided is a neutral one-sentence summary of Iran's response, how can you judge how thoughtful, coy, noncommittal, or dismissive Iran is being from that?

[scarletwoman]

46. Okay, how about if I narrow it down to noncommittal?

I admit to less than careful reading -- upon re-reading it was apparently the Dubai reporter who was thoughtful yet coy in (presumeably) his commentary.

sw

[EFerrari]

49. I just read that Shimon Peres timed his own message to the Iranian people

to coincide with Obama's. He urged them to rise up against their government. No, nothing to see here.

[scarletwoman]

50. Oh joy. Yeah, outsiders urging people to rise up against their government works out SO well.

Just ask the Marsh Arabs in Iraq after Bush 1 did the same.

sw

[mudesi]

26. Proof In This Thread That The Media Is NOT To Blame

Two replies where people didn't even read the subject line of you OP.

It's not the media. It's the ignorant American public with zero attention span and no critical thought.

[EFerrari]

28. Or maybe it was me. I should have put FUCK THE MEDIA

in the Subj Line. :)

[kywildcat]

32. I gotta agree with you on that.

[EFerrari]

33. But how many people even know about that Mosaic broadcast?

If CNN tells says Teheran is flipping off our new president, most people will believe it.

[Occam Bandage]

27. The Dubai clip is pretty, well, bland. It doesn't say much about Tehren's response,

except to say that it welcomes an offer of change but that it wants to see tangible evidence of change in the way we approach Iran, which is more or less what the VoA article says.

Either way, Obama's message is more aimed at strengthening the position of moderates in Iran, by taking some of the wind out of anti-American sails.

[EFerrari]

29. It doesn't say that Iran DISMISSED our president.

[Occam Bandage]

35. Nope. It didn't say much at all about Iran's response. It was focused

mostly on the fact that Obama had given the message, on the content of the message, and on the history of recent Iranian-American relations. The VoA article at least had transcripts of the Iranian response: "Has your hostility towards the Iranian nation changed? Is there some sign of this? Have you unblocked Iran's assets frozen in US banks? Have you lifted the oppressive sanctions? Have you stopped insulting us and making accusations against our great nation and its leaders? Have you stopped your unconditional support for Israel? So what," he asks, "has changed? They use the slogan of change, but we have seen no change," said Khamenei.

That seems like dismissal of the offer to me, albeit dismissal on the condition of a lack of change of United States policy. Either way, I think the VoA article is far more useful; it contains several excerpts from the Iranian response, and two different expert (although likely biased) analyses of what this response could mean. I tend to agree with part of the VoA article's analysis, actually: the hardliners in Iran have gained much power under the threat of Bush, and they are likely to attempt to rebuff Obama's overtures as inadequate. After all, if the Iranian people begin to see America as an apologetic friend and not a shifty enemy, then moderates will win and hardliners will lose in the coming elections this summer.

It's clear the VoA article proceeds from the assumption that Iran's response is going to be the most hostile possible one could reasonably interpret from the text. However, the comparison to the news clip is, I think, a bit off. VoA is reporting on the implications of the Iranian response, and the Dubai network is reporting on the fact that Obama has softened America's stance and offered a message of peace to the Iranian people.

[EFerrari]

37. Iran has not rebuffed Obama. VOA article is speculating

on a NEGATIVE response that did not happen. Dubai outlet reported both Obama's gesture AND its reception by Teheran.

[Occam Bandage]

39. I think it's a bit much to say that a single sentence constitutes "reporting."

Iran welcomed Obama's offer but asked him to do something tangible to fix previous American mistakes is all they said regarding Tehran's response. I really don't see how that is more informative than the VoA's in-depth but partially single-sided article is.

[EFerrari]

41. VOA's report is not "partially one sided". It's skewed to the right --

probably even in their choice of commentators. Why is VOA asking someone in Tel Aviv for comment?

[Occam Bandage]

42. You think VoA's reporting doesn't reflect the tone of Iran's response. I think it mostly does,

but more importantly mentions that the point wasn't the Iranian administration's response, but rather the message's positive response among the Iranian people. And the Dubai reporters didn't say anything substantial about Iran's response at all. I'm not sure what else there is to say, then.

[EFerrari]

48. No, VOA is skewing. And I'm not crazy apparently. Look at this.

That link is to the I/P forum. Apparently, Israeli hawk Shimon Peres timed his own message to the Iranian people to coincide with Obama's in which he called for the people to rise up against their government. And NYTs gave both messages equal space. Nice touch.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=266449&mesg_id=266449

[spanone]

31. Democracy is only as good as the information that we receive....from another post

this is really frightening...

[spanone]

34. current cnn.com headline..Iranian leader: Obama's rhetoric not enough

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Saturday he sees no change in U.S. policy toward Iran despite the U.S. promise of a "new beginning."

Khamenei said a change in rhetoric is not enough, and Washington must practice what it preaches, according to the English-language Press TV channel in Iran.

He also promised that Iran will change its policy if the United States does so as well, Press TV reported.

Khamenei's comments, which he made in a televised address to mark the start of the Iranian New Year on Friday, come a day after U.S. President Barack Obama reached out to Iran in a videotaped message.

A spokesman for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad condemned U.S. foreign policy Friday in response to the video.

Obama's message spoke of "new beginnings" with the promise of a new year.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/21/iran.us.obama/index.html

[EFerrari]

38. Interesting. CNN is more positive than VOA.

Maybe we should call it Voice of the Pentagon instead.

[ConcernedCanuk]

43. Another version - BBC

.
.
.

Speaking to a large crowd in the holy city of Mashhad, Ayatollah Khamenei said Iran had "no experience with the new American government and the new American president". One gesture the US administration could make would be to ease some sanctions on passenger aeroplanes and spare parts

"We will observe them and we will judge," he said.

"If you change your attitude, we will change our attitude."

In the speech, which was carried live by Iranian television, he said Iran was yet to see such a change.

"What is the change in your policy?" he asked.

"Did you remove the sanctions? Did you stop supporting the Zionist regime? Tell us what you have changed. Change only in words is not enough."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7956504.stm

It's worth a read methinks

I don't agree with everything, but I understand their point of view

Understanding is the beginning

[EFerrari]

45. After all the horrible cr@p Bush did to Iran during the torture years

it's surprising they even bother. But, while the response to Obama wasn't rose throwing, it sure wasn't dismissive either.

[12string]

52. Sounds like the Iranian President

has spent some time in Missouri.I can find nothing wrong with his version of,"Show me".I wish people could learn that being on the receiving end of American foreign policy can be very detrimental in every aspect of life.No one likes or trusts a bully and the U.S. has been riding roughshod over the rest of the world for far too long.

[EFerrari]

53. Exactly. And "show me" is not "no" as the VOA article implied.

Who doesn't want us to have better relations with Iran? :shrug:

[ConcernedCanuk]

55. "Who doesn't want us to have better relations with Iran?" - Think PNACers . .

.
.
.

There ARE powerful people that WANT to get into more war ya know.

Some of them even want to play with the nuclear toys.

Itchy trigger fingers sorta comes to mind . .

(sigh)

[malaise]

44. Thanks a million

M$Greedia - Spin spin spin. Give thanks for access to international coverage.

[EFerrari]

47. No kidding! I only wish I could read another language better --

like French or German. My French reading is at about a 5th grade level and my German is still restricted to"milk" and "cheese". lol

[Orwellian_Ghost]

51. K&R

Perhaps Iran is also awaiting an apology for the US intervention in 1953.



This extremely important document is one of the last major pieces of the puzzle explaining American and British roles in the August 1953 coup against Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq. Written in March 1954 by Donald Wilber, one of the operation’s chief planners, the 200-page document is essentially an after-action report, apparently based in part on agency cable traffic and Wilber’s interviews with agents who had been on the ground in Iran as the operation lurched to its conclusion.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

[chrisa]

54. "News" channels don't report news...

They're selling you a story. That's why people like Glenn Beck are on. Entertainment first for the ratings, with some fact mixed in.