Empty Coverage of Iranian Execution, Arrest

"Iran Executes Man in Spy Case, and Blogger's Arrest Is Reported"
A23, Sunday 11/23/08
By Nazila Fathi

This article is remarkable for not only the terrible story it reports, but for its absence of questions, commentary and quotes from officials. This may help explain why such a huge story was buried on page A23.

The execution of Iranian Ali Ashtari is reported solely through Iranian news media. We're told only of an Israeli official in June having no knowledge of his case. The source and information of the recent arrest for spying of "high-profile blogger" Hossein Derakhshan is no better: a "web site affiliated with the Iranian Intelligence Ministry".

The International Herald Tribune is ahead of the Times curve in reporting this story. Fathi notes that in an IHT op-ed this Friday, an Israeli journalist who previously interviewed Derakhshan described him as an "'Iranian patriot' who through his blog 'offered the first views of ordinary life in Israel that Iranians had been able to see.'"

Fathi continues:

"Mr. Rabinovich quoted Mr. Derakhshan as saying "I want to humanize Israel for Iranians and tell them it's not what the Islamic propaganda machine is saying, that Israelis are thirsty for Muslim blood. And I want to show Israel that the average Iranian isn’t even thinking about doing harm to Israel."

This quote may reveal the impetus in the Iranian regime's arrest. It also brings to mind several questions. Why was this IHT op-ed not printed in the Times? Why wasn't Mr. Rabinovich, at the very least, reached for comment? Regardless of the difficulty in receiving from Iranian officials information about both of these cases, why did the Times not press the issue and if it did, why isn't that cited? Why were Israeli officials not asked to comment?

What say human rights organizations? What do the Israeli press report? Back to these individuals: Were these men Jewish? Were their confessions forced? What do their families say? The Times addresses none of this.

What the Times does offer is a poor description of the "tension" between Israel and Iran, which isn't as benign as Iran not recognizing Israel. What's more, the belligerence of Iran shouldn't be encapsulated by Ahmadinejad and his speaking "of Israel with hostility since his election in 2005".

Putting the problem on Ahmadinejad, this description misses the bigger picture of a regime with a fundamental and deep hostility to Israel. In 2001, then-president Rafsanjani spoke of the benefits and small "sacrifice" of a nuclear exchange with Israel. Is it a stretch to see such a regime falsely accuse of espionage citizens unsympathetic to this view? Even a simple parsing of Mr. Derakhshan's quote may have revealed that 1) to the Iranian regime, the term "Israeli spy" is applied to those who promote understanding of Israel and that 2) the Iranian regime is desperate for a story about Israeli spies, with which to justify its past belligerence to – and future plans for – the Jewish state.

Instead of spending time on Israel's "Don Corleone," the Times this week could've served its readers with hard, independent reporting and commentary on a bigger story. With the absence of such coverage, how can the Times still be referred to as the paper of record?