The millions who celebrated the anniversary of Iranian Revolution believe that West view is indelibly coloured.
It is interesting how the Western media utilises ‘Zeros’ (or the lack of it) to make people understand what it wants them to understand. So, the opposition gathering of a few thousands is called “several thousands” and 3-4 million-strong support for the regime is called merely “hundreds of thousands”. But there is a problem. The proliferation of new media has led to the proliferation of news that have been broadcasted mass of people stretching to kilometres to all sides from Azadi Square where the nucleus of the rally and celebration was. Since last year’s election, western analysts and media have been predicting doomsday for the regime spawning all sorts of theories that were based less on facts and more on fancies. Ali Jawad, a Tehran based political expert says, “In its coverage of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the language of the West is indelibly coloured with imperial hubris and Euro-centric prejudice. This is not new.” As masses poured in to all the major cities of the country, the media had no option but to air the picture. However, it was interesting to note how those videos and pictures were quickly sent into archive within few hours when videos of last year's anti-Ahmadinejad protests are still shown. The language too is interesting to note. For example, CNN’s Ivan Watson made a point of mentioning that free food and drinks were handed out to those celebrating the 31st anniversary of the revolution.Watson is completely unaware of the fact that all the gatherings in any Islamic country have mandatory refreshments for people. Naturally, the lack of imagination is glaring.
The Guardian insisted that the gathering comprised seminary students, women and elderly people. This assumption that in order to support Ahmadinejad one must be from a poor, rural or illiterate background highlights a larger bias that works. West’s Iran “experts”, most of them who have never visited Iran, or have years ago, have their own perceptions driven by their imagination. But facts remain different. This has been made obvious by a current survey done in Iran by The Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), a wing of the Centre on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and the Centre for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM). The study showcased some disturbing results for the western analysts. On the question of whether Ahmadinejad won the June 12 election, in all polls, a majority said they planned to or did vote for Ahmadinejad. These numbers ranged from 57 per cent before the elections to 66 per cent post elections. None of the polls found indications of support for regime change. For the question on whether they consider Ahmadinejad to be the legitimate President, about 76 to 83 per cent of people agreed that the results were fair.Talking to TSI, Steven Kull, the head of the institute and the chief analyst said, “The findings do not support the belief that a majority rejected Ahmadinejad. Our analysis is that it would not be prudent to base US policy on the assumption that the Iranian public is in a pre-revolutionary state of mind.”
As with all nations, there are several challenges that confront the Islamic Republic; from issues of employment and social mobility to the scope of the public space. However, it will be far from truth to say that people want regime change. The presence of Internet savvy Mousavi supporters might give a different picture; however, the support on street for the regime is there for everybody to see.
It is interesting how the Western media utilises ‘Zeros’ (or the lack of it) to make people understand what it wants them to understand. So, the opposition gathering of a few thousands is called “several thousands” and 3-4 million-strong support for the regime is called merely “hundreds of thousands”. But there is a problem. The proliferation of new media has led to the proliferation of news that have been broadcasted mass of people stretching to kilometres to all sides from Azadi Square where the nucleus of the rally and celebration was. Since last year’s election, western analysts and media have been predicting doomsday for the regime spawning all sorts of theories that were based less on facts and more on fancies. Ali Jawad, a Tehran based political expert says, “In its coverage of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the language of the West is indelibly coloured with imperial hubris and Euro-centric prejudice. This is not new.” As masses poured in to all the major cities of the country, the media had no option but to air the picture. However, it was interesting to note how those videos and pictures were quickly sent into archive within few hours when videos of last year's anti-Ahmadinejad protests are still shown. The language too is interesting to note. For example, CNN’s Ivan Watson made a point of mentioning that free food and drinks were handed out to those celebrating the 31st anniversary of the revolution.Watson is completely unaware of the fact that all the gatherings in any Islamic country have mandatory refreshments for people. Naturally, the lack of imagination is glaring.
The Guardian insisted that the gathering comprised seminary students, women and elderly people. This assumption that in order to support Ahmadinejad one must be from a poor, rural or illiterate background highlights a larger bias that works. West’s Iran “experts”, most of them who have never visited Iran, or have years ago, have their own perceptions driven by their imagination. But facts remain different. This has been made obvious by a current survey done in Iran by The Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), a wing of the Centre on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and the Centre for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM). The study showcased some disturbing results for the western analysts. On the question of whether Ahmadinejad won the June 12 election, in all polls, a majority said they planned to or did vote for Ahmadinejad. These numbers ranged from 57 per cent before the elections to 66 per cent post elections. None of the polls found indications of support for regime change. For the question on whether they consider Ahmadinejad to be the legitimate President, about 76 to 83 per cent of people agreed that the results were fair.Talking to TSI, Steven Kull, the head of the institute and the chief analyst said, “The findings do not support the belief that a majority rejected Ahmadinejad. Our analysis is that it would not be prudent to base US policy on the assumption that the Iranian public is in a pre-revolutionary state of mind.”
As with all nations, there are several challenges that confront the Islamic Republic; from issues of employment and social mobility to the scope of the public space. However, it will be far from truth to say that people want regime change. The presence of Internet savvy Mousavi supporters might give a different picture; however, the support on street for the regime is there for everybody to see.
Read these article :-
Outlook Magazine money editor quits
Don't trust the Indian Media!
