On July 5th, I was reading the digital version of the New York Times as I do every morning, and noted that its editors had chosen to place at the top of the first page the story written by Abdi Latif Dahir titled, “As Iran’s Patriarch is Mourned, Glimpses of a Changing Tehran.” I had a few observations about that editorial placement decision and about the piece itself, which I passed on to the outlet’s Guest Essay group, but I sadly never heard back from them.
First, it was disappointing that on the day after our country celebrated its 250th anniversary, they chose to make Dahir’s piece their first story, versus any reporting about the 250th anniversary of our unique democracy. Putting aside all the claims of lack of patriotism and lack of love for our country that could be made, being the first article in the July 5 New York Times aligned the outlet with the clear public relations and media strategy of the state of Iran, and that of the terrorists that have sought to destroy our and other Western democratic capitalist societies for many decades, even while they have created a better quality of life for their people than that of the brutal authoritarian state of Iran.
Was it not lost on the New York Times that the scheduling of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s memorial on top of our 250th July Fourth celebration was part of their PR and overall media strategy?
Surely, they could have found another time during the more than four months since his death. Their editorial choice provided greater reach for that PR and overall media strategy as the outlet became a spreader of their propaganda (more on that below). I am pretty sure that the architects of the Iranian state PR and media campaign against the West, which has been going on for decades, were celebrating when they saw that the New York Times published an article discussing the funeral of their authoritarian leader above all the articles having to do with the 250 years of U.S. independence, included coverage that highlighted the virtues of our great nation. It reminded me of themes discussed by Judge Roy Altman in his book, Israel on Trial.
Second, I commend the NYT for their forethought and Mr. Dahir’s bravery to be on the ground in Tehran during the ceremony for the dead Iranian leader. When I saw the headline, I was hopeful that the piece would be about the struggles of the Iranian people, especially women, under the Ayatollah’s brutal authoritarian regime and how there were many Iranians attending the ceremony under fear of persecution if they didn’t. Unfortunately, the piece was soft on all the heartbreaking historical context.
The story dealt with all this unfavorable history with one comment from a woman who made an ambiguous statement, “I am afraid I won’t be able to say what is in my heart.” The piece contained no outrage or condemnation for the brutal leader Khamenei had been, including the slaughter of tens of thousands of Iranians during the social uprising only months before his death. Could this lack of context mean that the Iranian government had some sort of explicit or implicit control over Dahir’s editorial freedom? The article started with somewhat of a disclaimer that described the tight control over Dahir’s movements, who he could and could not talk to and that he was always surrounded by Iranian government officials.
Given the number of its citizens the Iranian government had slaughtered only a few months before and the presence of the Iranian government handlers, including an interpreter, it is not surprising that there was not more reporting about the continued unrest of the Iranian people towards their authoritarian leaders. Given all of this, the credibility of the whole piece should be called into question, or at least there should have been more context and qualifiers articulated.
Third, the article seemed to echo the recurring tendency in journalism to reduce many stories about the Middle East to an oversimplified binary choice between oppressors and those they oppress. While the article never explicitly stated it, its lack of condemnation of Khamenei’s brutality towards his people and the overall solemn tone that accompanies a funeral and several word choices seemed to put the dead Iranian leader into the oppressed box and the U.S. and Israel into the oppressor box. In fact, Khamenei should have been clearly described as the oppressor and his people as the oppressed.
TRUMP DECLARES IRAN DEAL DEAD: WAS THIS THE PLAN ALL ALONG?
The choice of the word “slain” in the article’s lead-in picture, which showed Iranians under images of the ayatollah as a younger man, was misplaced. “Slain” is a word that has been historically used when a great leader is murdered. Thus, it could have insinuated to a terrorist or other believer that the U.S. and Israel murdered Khamenei. In some ways, the article did what social media does so effectively and dangerously when its algorithms push people further in the direction of their already held beliefs, activating their impulse to place blame, or worse, act in dangerous ways. Much of the increased polarization among our people has resulted from this kind of word choice by political leaders and publishers.
Lastly, I would have thought that this article would have been a great opportunity to tell the story of how much hardship the people of Iran have gone through over the last nearly 50 years of oppression under the Iranian authoritarian leadership, especially on a day when the U.S. is celebrating its own independence from the oppression of the English monarchy. That kind of article would help expand the outlet’s readership by broadening its audience to include centrist readers like me. Sadly, the placement and content of this article may lead me to stop reading the New York Times cover to cover the way I do each day.
Kurt Hall is an ex-media executive (cinema and advertising) who is a father to a 21-year-old daughter and has spent his retirement as an outdoorsman, substitute teacher, and director at media and tech-related corporations and not-for-profits focused on education.