The United Nations was founded after World War II with the ultimate goal of bringing about social progress and world peace. Last week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited the UN headquarters in New York and did his best to undo that effort in a speech that President Obama called “outrageous and offensive.”
Only a few miles from Ground Zero, Ahmadinejad argued that “the majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree” that “the U.S. government orchestrated the [September 11] attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East.” He went on to liken American military presence in the Middle East to colonialism aimed at ensuring security for the “Zionist regime” (Ahmadinejad does not refer to Israel, a United Nations member nation, by name, having previously said that he wishes it to be “wiped off the map”).
None of this is new. Time after time, Ahmadinejad spits hateful rhetoric,denying the Holocaust happened or claiming that there are no homosexuals in Iran. And again, the media rushes to rebroadcasts his slurs, providing Ahmadinejad with a soapbox.
In an interview last week, Fareed Zakaria pointed out just how valuable that international media attention is. “If not for Ahmadinejad’s outlandishness, it would not deserve as much attention as we’re giving it,” Zakaria explained. “But we give it and him enormous attention and almost give Iran and Ahmadinejad free power.”
Ahmadinejad depends on this free publicity. He is at odds with the influential clerics and must derive popularity from his extreme viewpoints. Ahmadinejad’s performance in New York was hailed as a “divine gift” in Tehran’s Friday prayer, according to the country’s semi-official Fars News Agency. He may not represent the typical moderate Arab, but he gains popularity by standing up to the West. Outside of Iran, it is difficult for moderate Arab governments to denounce his radicalism because he is seen as a sympathetic figure to the Arab cause due to his stance on Palestine.
It is not a matter of free speech or press. Of course, the United Nations should uphold freedom of speech and the press should report on whatever they see fit. But we do not have to have our headlines held hostage by extreme and untrue viewpoints. Several nations’ delegates commendably walked out during his speech, allowing Ahmadinejad his right to speak, but smartly avoiding gracing him with their presence or a reaction. Perhaps the media could take a cue and avoid granting him an undue amount of coverage.
Instead, the media has essentially rewarded his behavior. Every year, Ahmadinejad hosts a breakfast that reporters scramble to get invitations to. This is understandable. The idea of a question and answer period with a bizarre president who may soon have nuclear weapons is thrilling. But when Ahmadinejad hits his regular talking points, the press should ignore him. This year, over bagels and lox (no joke), Ahmadinejad repeated his questioning of the Holocaust and threateningly declared, “the United States doesn’t understand what war looks like. When a war starts, it knows no limits.” You can be sure that the Iranian media present in the room captured the moment as another shot of their president standing up to important American journalists, further bolstering his popularity and significance.
If Ahmadinejad has proven himself repeatedly to be an anti-Western, vile figure, why do we stop the presses when he does so once again? It is the duty of the press to report important events and educate the public. Ahmadinejad’s speech was neither credible nor fresh enough to warrant the press and reaction it garnered.
Ahmadinejad didn’t come to New York to abide by onerous UN sanctions (he has compared them to “annoying flies, like a used tissue”), he came to manipulate the world media into political capital. As a campus producing top journalists, it’s important that we consider whether good sound bites equal good, responsible journalism.