Article Surfing Archive

Iran's president Ahmedinejad is rebranding himself. Not only has he launched a blog which recounts his childhood, but he has also enlisted retired CBS star reporter Mike Wallace to do his public relations dirty work.

Strangely enough, the man is attractive, with a grasp of the situation, sure of himself self-righteous, he was much more impressive as a private individual than what I expected him to be. I thought that he would be a firebrand but on the contrary, He listened to the questions and also solicited my opinions. We almost enjoyed quality time together hostility almost does not exist or exhibits discussion. We could've been pals.

These were the sentiments that Mike Wallace, the veteran (88 years old) Jewish-American journalist from the CBS Network describes his interviewee, the "friend of Zionism", Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the President of Iran. Wallace held the interview in Teheran during the previous month, and it was broadcast on the program 60 Minutes 10 days ago (August 13, 2006).

In a radio program discussion following the interview, Wallace said that Ahmadinejad provided "interesting responses" with regards to his calls to wipe Israel off the map. He added that he was even happy to initiate a jocular discussion on the subject. Wallace does not believe that Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite, "no he is not anti-Jewish".

This interview, dovetails with the new rebranding campaign of the Iranian archenemy, accompanied by, amongst other things the launching of a personal blog on the net, where he speaks of his childhood and with self-deprecating humor.

In view of the fact that Wallace was privileged to interview the Ayatollah Khomeini, 27 years ago, in the midst of the American Hostage Crisis in Iran, it should not come as a surprise that the Iranian authorities allowed him presently to interview Ahmadinejad. Wallace did not negate this.

Severe Reactions on the Net

In a biting satiric passage that appeared in reply to the interview the writer imagined how Wallace would have phrased a hypothetical interview with Hitler during the 30s. "Some criticize his decisions and lack of flexibility, but after a talk with him we discovered that there is more than meets the eye about the fuhrer. He may be short in stature, but he does not betray any lack of self-confidence. He designs his uniform by himself and he is a respected artist. Even his mustache defies convention."

A similarly cynical response was expressed on the conservative website The Citizen Journal which ran a delightful clip, displaying the new bosom companions: Wallace and Ahmadinejad.

The Information Value.

Every time a journalist interviews a despicable personage, he immediately justifies himself by arguing that the interview contains informational value. This means that beyond obtaining an interview with the most dangerous person in the world, a definition to which Ahmadinejad responds, Wallace managed to fulfill the journalistic mission that he happened upon--to impugn his falsehoods and primarily not to allow him to use the interview as a propaganda stage. But whoever listens to the lengthy and tiresome interview will draw the opposite conclusions regarding Wallace and his interviewee.

Wallace ostensibly attempted to ask Ahmadinejad some difficult questions regarding his previous statements about the Zionists (not about the Jews heaven forbid) Holocaust denial, his expressed desire to erase Israel from the map or the topic of the Iranian nuclear project. However, Ahmadinejad answered them only after a lengthy evasion, while he took pains to spread lies unceasingly (concerning his desire for nuclear fuel etc.), and railed against the United States and Israel. Employing this method, he controlled his interviewer quite well. Even when Wallace attempted to correct him, he was prevented from doing so in the course of the interview. It was apparent that Wallace took pains not to anger the President of Iran and in the end result the interview took place in Teheran, and this was a decision which bore a journalistic price.

When Wallace persisted and presented a question regarding Iranian responsibility for financing Hezbollah, the latter asked Wallace are you a representative of the Zionist Regime or a journalist? Wallace's response was a panicky "I am a journalist a journalist" This again demonstrated his weakness and the fact that he had fallen into the demagogic trap set by Ahmadinejad. After the Iranian President tried to persuade Wallace to support Hezbollah, Wallace didn't bring the topic up again.

Beyond displaying weakness in the interview, Wallace's flattery for the Iranian president was also annoying. Ahmadinejad tried to joke during the course of the interview, saying that his adviser had advised him in a note to straighten out his suit. Wallace could not control himself "Why do you have to straighten out the suit I think you look fine, believe me you look fine. His subsequent attempt to ascertain the President's hobbies totally exhausted the flattery routine/

Useful Idiots

Vladimir Lenin, the Soviet propagandistic genius, who understood the importance of recruiting intellectuals, journalists and men of letters in the West to serve the Communist Revolution, dubbed his recruits "useful idiots" in other words useful innocents who did not understand that they were being exploited by the propaganda machine of the other side. It seems that Wallace as well, fits this definition.

The flattery of Ahmadinejad also found expression in the artificial questions regarding the absence of relations between the United States and Iran for 27 years (really heartbreaking) and did the Iranian President desire relations with the United States or when he quoted at length from the propaganda missive which Mahmoud sent to Bush.

Since Wallace is not an innocent, it's not clear what he hoped to attain in the interview. It's obvious that one could not conduct a candid and penetrating conversation in Teheran and by the manner in which the interview was conducted it was not apparent that he wanted to or was capable of refuting the lies of the Iranian President. Thus for example, when Ahmadinejad brought up the accusation of "Zionist guilt" in taking control over the Middle East Region and noted that the Palestinians were paying the price of the Holocaust, Wallace simply did not respond and in this way he was a party to this travesty on historical accuracy.

Propaganda

When Wallace noted in the introductory remarks of the interview that Ahmadinejad especially sought to direct his comments to the American People and to George Bush, the Iranian President knew how exploit the propaganda stage that he was awarded to the hilt. Like Nasrallah and perhaps at his inspiration, the Iranian President turned to democratic American public opinion and preached against the American leadership. Wallace let him get away with it: regarding Bush's low popularity ratings in the United States, the contention that in the world they hate Bush more and more, the high percentage of people without medical coverage etc.

Ahmadinejad displayed vast knowledge of America's internal problems and knew how to play on the public discourse regarding opposition to the war and against oppression "we financed everyone who is oppressed throughout the world, even the oppressed in the United States, Europe and Southeast Asia."

The Man of Peace

When a free propaganda pipeline is available, Ahmadinejad can even sound like a flower child from the 60s. He remarked that the era of the bomb is over "it's behind us to they were talking about the age of thinking dialogue and cultural interchange we must love people," he noted. "You can love all nations without killing people, without conquest.

These peace prattles are an example of the method which the Soviets utilized in the West. Utter some pacific words and some innocent in the West will fall for it. From the interview we can derive the genuine discovery that the Iranian president knows how to keep a tight leash on famous journalists as well and exploit the medium skillfully for the propaganda purposes and public relations. This should be a lesson to other journalists who seek his intimacy.

Indeed the fact that Ahmadinejad is a liar is not a deeply held secret, but now we can see how he lies quite brazenly: The denial of funding for Hezbollah ("we provide moral and political support") denying the speech which he gave at the United Nations where he described himself as surrounded by a halo. The fact that the Iranians require nuclear technology because they must create fuel (oil is exactly what they're lacking), and scores of examples. The problem is that the laypersons will not identify these lies that easily, because Wallace did not attempt to expose Ahmadinejad's falsities every time that he lied brazenly.

He also threatened without shouting "we are not working to create a bomb but if he [Bush] thinks that he can stop it you must understand that he won't succeed." He also tried to intimidate Bush 'Those who refuse to accept an invitation to good will not have a good ending or fate."

Wallace's intention was to present the man behind the demonized image which was presumably fabricated. We're talking about a complex plaguing liberal journalists, who are attempting to shatter their public's "myth" about dictators and portray the enemy your exact duplicate. Wallace in a discussion following the interview, (which can be found on the CBS website), presented Ahmadinejad's opinions in the third person without any reservations or protests "He speaks about those who wanted to place their country in our part of the world. They want to position their country because of what happened to them."

Wallace admitted that Ahmadinejad managed to control the interview and promote his agenda. He presented as stated, the revolting concepts of his interviewee without any hint of criticism "He is not an anti-Semite...he all in all asked why not place the Zionists in Europe or America?" Take another example. Wallace describes Ahmadinejad as saying "let's assume that the Holocaust occurred so why do the Palestinians have to pay because of what occurred in Europe?"

In Summation

Wallace recalls the interview he conducted with Khomeini 27 years ago, and noted that was aware that in Khomeini's circle they wanted that he specifically should interview him. In his opinion he realized that he caused Khomeini to sound more human. "More human than what you perceive him to be", Wallace told his interviewer. It's possible that Wallace received permission to talk with Khomeini then and with Ahmadinejad today, because the Iranians knew how "useful an idiot" he would be on their behalf.

It was Charlie Chaplin, who definitely did not intend to create empathy for Hitler but quite the reverse, who beat his breast following the Holocaust, because in his movie "The Great Dictator" he portrayed Hitler not only as a ridiculous character but as a human character. Didn't Wallace take into account what would be the repercussions of such an interview?

What About Israeli Journalists?

In Israel as well, there are journalists who are prepared to interview arch-terrorist of various sorts such as: Yassir Arafat or Shaikh Yassin. The interview which the journalist Uri Avneri conducted in Beirut in the midst of the Lebanon War with the object of his veneration, Yassir Arafat, is a bad memory. In the documentary film of Yair Lev "Re: Uri Avneri" an embarrassing segment from the joint meeting appears. Arafat is sitting alongside of Avneri and says that he will continue to press for the right of return. Avneri turns to him and advises that it's not politic to say this to the Israeli public. Indeed, the very purpose of the interview was for propaganda purposes but this specific segment expressed the epitome of cynicism where a journalist becomes not only a propagandist but an overt and voluntary adviser to an arch-terrorist. Subsequently Avneri would agree to a certain realization of "the right of return"- half a million Palestinian refugees over a decade.

Even when an interviewing journalist decides to ask tough questions as Ashrat Cotler did during the 90s, when she interviewed Shaikh Yassin with her head modestly covered by a handkerchief, she still served as a tool of Hamas for Yassin's purposes. By the very act of conducting the interview, she awarded a human visage to Shaikh Yassin and served the interests of Hamas propaganda towards the Israeli public. A few years later the "intifada" erupted and Yassin's true character was revealed to everybody as he bestowed religious legitimation on all the acts of slaughter in Israeli cities, prior to his liquidation.

Ran Farhi
http://www.omedia.org