COVERAGE OF THE IRAN HOSTAGE CRISIS

COVERAGE OF THE IRAN HOSTAGE CRISIS

(J.F.Larson, 1986)

The fact that Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution came as a surprise to many Americans was in part attributable to the nature of news coverage prior to that time. From January 1972 to October 1977, U.S. network news coverage of Iran accounted for only about 1 % of all international news stories. Of those stories that did occur, only 10% originated from Iran itself, the others being wire service stories or overseas reports about Iran filed from another country. The two dominant themes of those stories were oil and arms sales, exactly the focus of U.S. government relations with Iran during that period. Although there were occasional hints of discontent, such as demonstrations against the Shah, the autocratic but pro-U.S. Iranian ruler, no consistent attention was paid to the developing unrest. Professional writings by foreign policy experts during this period also showed little understanding of grassroots discontent in Iran (Mowlana, 1984).

From November 1977 to January 1979, U.S. reporting on Iran changed considerably. The Shah’s visit to Washington in November 1977 evoked an anti-Shah demonstration quelled by tear gas across the street from the White House. After this newsworthy event, attention began to be paid to flaws in the Shah and his regime. In 1978, all three TV networks placed correspondents in Teheran, which resulted in over half of the stories on Iran originating from there and focusing on antigovernment demonstrations, strikes, and marches. After the departure of the besieged Shah in January 1979, TV served as the major communication between the exiled Islamic leader Ayatollah Khomeini in

News: Setting the Agenda About the World 202

Paris and the fragile caretaker government in Teheran. After the return of Khomeini to Iran in February, U.S. news focused on Iran, especially its implications for the United States. From April to October, however, coverage of Iran on U.S. TV dropped off sharply.

After the Iranian seizure of dozens of American hostages at the U.S. embassy in Teheran on November 4, 1979, however, coverage increased dramatically, comprising nearly one third of all international news stories in 1980. Television, and to a lesser extent, newspapers, became major channels of communication between the two governments, as all diplomatic and commercial channels had been broken. Iran allowed an NBC interview with hostage William Gallegos and even took out a full- page ad in the New York Times to print the text of a Khomeini speech to America. U.S. media also covered the hostage families, early release of some hostages, the death of the Shah in Egypt in July 1980, and the effect of the hostage crisis on the 1980 U.S. Presidential election. The safe release of the hostages on Ronald Reagan’s Inauguration Day in January 1981 received heavy coverage, but subsequent stories on Iran that year originated elsewhere or occasionally from correspondents from other nations who were stationed in Iran. For an analysis of the media in Iran before, during, and after the revolution, see Beeman (1984).

This strong desire to play up a local connection and make the story relevant to readers can sometimes end up distorting the news (Goldberg, 2002). For example, when the media discovered the problem of the homeless in the 1980s, the homeless individuals actually interviewed were very articulate, usually white, often professional people down on their luck, in short, just like the majority audience. Never mind that the majority of the homeless had substance abuse and/or major mental illness problems and often were people of color. In another example, when AIDS started to receive wide coverage in the late 1980s, it was the relatively few heterosexual, non-drug-user AIDS victims who were interviewed. Just as with the homeless problem, the media believed that viewers would be most interested in the problem (thus higher ratings) if they felt it was a threat to themselves. Thus the media chose “representative” individuals most like the majority audience in order to make the story connect with the most viewers. The result, however, was that many people were far more worried about contracting AIDS or becoming homeless than was warranted. At the same time, the real problems of what to do with the homeless mentally ill after state institutions closed and how to stop the spread of HIV among IV drug users and gay men not practicing safe sex received little attention.

The surest way to obtain coverage of one’s activities is to imbue them with these primary and secondary newsworthy characteristics. The more of

203 A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication

these an event has, the more likely the media will be to show interest. Possessing these characteristics does not necessarily ensure that the event is important, but it does ensure that the perceived reality will be a newsworthy event. For example, the murder trial of O.J.Simpson in 1995 had all of the newsworthy characteristics. It focused on one person who was greatly admired but was accused of committing a very violent act. It centrally related to many of the cultural themes (big vs. little, right vs. wrong, appearance vs. reality). The fact that the entire trial was televised also helped to ensure saturation coverage for several months. See Box 7.4 for an interesting argument from Aristotle to explain the public fascination with the Simpson trial.

One group who, unfortunately, knows all about how to stage a newsworthy event, are terrorists. This is why they are particularly fond of large public symbolic targets, like the Pentagon, World Trade Center, and government buildings, especially in well-known places like New York City, London, Paris, or Washington. They know there will be more news coverage there and likely more damage and deaths, due to the denser population.

Now that we have seen what makes a newsworthy event, we examine how the media create the story that is news.

BOX 7.4