IRAN: How nuclear report played in the media

Much of the heavily monitored Iranian media gave glowing portrayals of International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei's latest report on Iran's nuclear program.

Tightly controlled state radio and television channels broadcast a continous stream of comments from pro-government experts congratulating the Iranian nation for the "successful" report. "Iran has managed to prove that Iran's nuclear activities were peaceful and based on native domestic technology and know how," said one analyst.

The bold, black headline across the front page of Kayhan, the hard-line Persian daily, read "ElBaradei's report has challenged the prestige of the West."

Of course, the report presented a far more ambiguous picture of Iran's nuclear efforts, as Maggie Farley and Borzou Daragahi report in Saturday's L.A. Times:

The United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency says it has "serious concern" about Iran's potential to assemble a nuclear bomb because the country has not addressed questions about weapons designs, but it credited Iran for clarifying all other issues about its nuclear program history...The report strikes a delicate middle ground, providing fodder for Security Council members who demand new sanctions, as well as ammunition for those who argue that Iran deserves a break for its good-faith efforts.

And in an illustration of the value of Iran's much battered reformist press, one liberal-leaning daily in Tehran, Etemad, casts doubt on the report's benefits for Iran.

"Again, ElBaradei gives an ambigious report about Iran," a headline read, in small type on the front page.

— Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran

Art: The daily Etemad was one of the few Iranian news outlets that delivered a nuanced account of the International Atomic Energy Association's latest report on the country's nuclear program. Credit: Etemad.com

Comments

[Mohammad Reza]

Having lived in the US for the past 7 years, I have come to learn that western press can be just as biased when it comes to presenting information. The difference is that they are more advanced in making "look" less biased.

[Cyrus]

I don't think the portrayal in the US press is necessarily accurate either. For example, regarding the weaponization studies that the IAEA expressed "serious concern", the IAEA report also said that it has "no credible evidence in that regard" and the IAEA Director General referred to those "alleged studies" as having "supposedly" happened in the past...note how the LA Times failed to mention any of that!

I wonder whose media is more "tighly controlled"?