The purpose of this blog is not media criticism; we're happy to leave that to others. But I read a page one story in The New York Times today that was such a blatant fudge, that it's illustrative of how spin can find its way into even the most important international stories.

Titled "Rebuke in Iran To Its President On Nuclear Role," this story talked about how two "hard-line newspapers" had called on Iran's president to "stay out of all matters nuclear."

Here's the paragraph that got me scratching my head:

In the hazy world of Iranian politics, such a public rebuke was seen as a sign that the supreme leader -- who has final say on all matters of state -- might no longer support the president as the public face of defiance to the West.

You might miss it if you're not looking carefully. The key to the whole story: "... such a public rebuke WAS SEEN as a sign that the supreme leader..."

Was seen? By whom? The Times doesn't tell us.

This technique is used all the time -- at many different publications -- but it is very, very bad. Was this the interpretation of the U.S. government? Of analysts following the situation? Of political rivals to Iran's president? Of the reporters themselves?

Personally, I don't mind if it was any of the above. Just tell me!

When you dig into the story, it gets worse. There are A LOT of hedge words in here at critical areas:

• "...APPEARS to be under pressure from the highest authorities..."
• "...-- MIGHT no longer support the president..."
• "...a POTENTIALLY damaging development..."
• "And the message that Iran's most senior officials SEEM to be sending..."
• "...the criticism now SEEMS to have gained more credibility..."

There is a hint after the jump off page one about the genesis of the initial interpretation of the news. Look at the end of the following paragraph:

That pressure has continued, and the criticism now seems to have gained more credibility in the face of the sanctions and Iran's troubled economic standing. The United States increased pressure on Iran over its role in Iraq has also raised concerns in Tehran and may be behind efforts to restrain the president, political analysts in Tehran said.

Who are these analysts? Aside from quotes from the two Iranian newspaper articles, I counted three directly quoted sources in the story. They were:

• Mohammad Atrianfar, an executive at the daily Shargh, which was closed last fall, and a reformist politician
• Ahmad Shirzad, a reformist politician and a former legislator
• Ali Hagh, an economist in Tehran

Two "reformist" politicians and an economist. So, it appears the interpretation that the newspaper stories' true meaning -- that Iran's supreme leader has withdrawn support (sorry, MAY have withdrawn...) for the country's president and his nuclear ambitions -- is coming mostly from politicians in OPPOSITION to Iran's president.

Not very objective, is it?

Lastly, what of the supreme leader? In the second-to-last paragraph of the story, we read the following:

Despite Mr. Ahmadinejad's [Iran's president] harsh language since the resolution was passed, Ayatollah Khamenei has not referred to it directly and only once said that Iran would not give up its right to pursue its nuclear program.

Technorati Tags: communications, media, new york times, newspaper