In Defense of CNN

There's been a lot of talk about the failures of CNN and the mainstream media to cover the Iranian elections. I touched on this in my last blog entry, but I wanted to expand on it.

Principally the complaints are two-parted: That coverage is wholly insufficient and then that what little coverage there is seems to be hesitant to stray from the Iranian government line. Mainstream media journalists are seemingly ignoring the tidal wave of information pouring forth out of the social media networks, and instead merely saying that "President Ahmadinejad retained his position according to the official election process with 65 percent of the vote. Ayatollah Khomeini released a statement Monday inviting Mousavi and his supporters to identify ballot areas that they would like to be recounted."

Meanwhile frantic Iranian Twitterers are reporting millions of marchers and blood in the streets.

In defense of CNN, I think some might be getting a little confused by the way journalists write. "Official reports" mean that they are the reports that are coming from government officials, not that they are objectively true. The editing process is a lot more stringent than people think, but part of that means that things have to be written in a certain way or it takes inches and inches to explain.

Professional journalists try to limit themselves to attributable statements and provable facts, and that's why they are having a tough time writing about a movement that is heavily based on rumor and anonymous Internet users.

As a joe-blow citizen, I can write: "That hick Ahmadinejad rigged the election and now his goons are killing peaceful demonstrators. It's an affront to democracy everywhere and the entire world should damn him and Khomeini for it." But if I'm working as a journalist then I can't say any of that because I have no proof or attributable sources and I need to avoid editorializing.

The journalistic industry as a whole is totally averse to printing anything that is unsubstantiated, and if you want to print a quote from an anonymous source (or often just somebody's first name) then you usually have to get all sorts of people to sign off on you doing it. And for good reason. It isn't good enough to simply say, "Here's what someone might have said, we have no proof that it is at all true and we can't say who said it," because that's a just a quick trip to fictitious stories and libel suits.

That doesn't excuse mainstream media for letting stupid shit sit on their front pages and interviewing the Jonas brothers while people are dying in the streets, but you have to recognize the position they are in - either they have to find a way to report on hearsay or they have to play the same stuff over and over.

Journalists shouldn't remain mute if they know of a good story in the making, but there's a need to hold their enthusiasm somewhat. Let Twitter and YouTube have the glory of the 24-hour live coverage, and focus on getting it right. Hell, baseless journalism from overexcited journalists making assumptions is what helped get us into Iraq.