Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd, and Josh Fattal have been held in Iran since July 31, 2009 when they were taken into custody by an Iranian Revolutionary Guard officer. If you watch world news I will imagine that you are already aware of this, but it is why they were hiking in Iraq at the Iranian border that is the question. There is also debate as to whether they were in Iraq or Iran. I do not pretend to have the real answer and instead this is somewhat of an exercise in information analysis.
Do you automatically believe any news story in a mainstream newspaper?
Do you automatically believe any news story in an alternative news publication because the viewpoints presented are similar to your own?
I'll tell you – I never automatically believe anything. I am not a trusting person, as people go. I wish that I could be trusting; however, the case and bizarre trial eliminated that possibility forever. I used to be trusting, for what that is worth.
Articles written about me during and after my trial contained various falsities – this is a reference to the Orlando Sentinel articles published at the time. When I questioned the reporter the response I received was, "That is how my editor wanted to run the story and you cannot sue because it was not a quote." The fact is that the article attributed statements to me that I did not make – a fact that could be proven as my attorney sat there on the bench in hallway with me when the reporter spoke to both of us. I have since learned enough to know that the reporter was incorrect – indeed I could have filed suit. The statements attributed to me that I didn't make painted a false picture of me. It was unethical and unfair to say the least.
Even mainstream newspapers such as the Orlando Sentinel or the Washington Post or the New York Times publish stories with an assortment of falsities. Sometimes it is the result of a hidden agenda as in my case – the Orlando Sentinel used to be quite supportive of the MBI – and sometimes it is the result of having incorrect information, as in the situation with a statement concerning my case in the Orlando Weekly. The point is that there are various reasons that any article may contain false information, so blind trust is not normally an intelligent idea.
I have found articles about the hikers' situation that make polar opposite statements. There is one writer that claims the hikers to be pro-Syrian, anti-Israel activists there on an anti-Israel mission. The writer of a different article paints the hikers to be innocent colleagues from Berkeley taking a relaxing vacation hike in the Kurdistan region of Iraq near the Iran border. Yet other articles make different statements.
So who are you supposed to believe? Let's use our logical reasoning skills for a moment.
Who in their right mind would be hiking in the Kurdistan region of Iraq near the Iran border in July of 2009?
Answer: No one in their right mind would do such a thing unless it was a part of an agenda of some sort by some group or government agency.
This is the one fact that no one can really dispute. You could tell me that they weren't in their right minds and have mental issues and that would be more believable to me. C'mon – a relaxing hike there at this point in time? You could use many defenses, but that one is laughable. No list of articles written in the year or two prior to this situation could convince me that they were anti-Israel or even activists on a personal mission. The reason that such a list would be unconvincing is that it could easily be a planned cover should a problem arise.
I also do not view the Iranian government or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as ignorant and actually quite the opposite. This is an educated individual with a background comparable to that of a socially disadvantaged citizen in the US. Words and meanings in his speeches have frequently been twisted by Western media.
Media often has an agenda of one sort or another and few sources are truly unbiased. Bloggers that hold all types of viewpoints are biased more often than not, whether there is an agenda or not – and yes, this includes me. I think it's obvious when you read this blog that I have an anti-war, liberal, and even anti-establishment perspective. It's also obvious that I have zero trust of government, agents, cops and almost any other power player.
The hikers' families are begging for help from anyone that will listen. Do you blame them? I don't. However, the fact is that the Iranian government believes the hikers were there on a mission of some sort for a government agency. Do you blame them for this belief? I don't.
What do we do with spies on missions here in the US? Well, we have done everything from sentence them to death to incarcerate them for life to release them. In the end it is the decision of the US government, as this should be the decision of the Iranian government. Insulting the Iranians' intelligence is not likely to help the hikers, and media has done this in many ways as have human rights groups. Let's not pretend that we do not have political prisoners and spies incarcerated in the US, as to do so would be a clearly false assertion that serves only to insult.
Perhaps a realistic and honest approach to the hikers' situation would be more advantageous.
No comments:
Post a Comment