All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
It's anti-war radio.
I'm Scott Horton and our next guest on the show is Peter Hart from FAIR.
Fairness and accuracy in reporting.
I can vouch for that.
I think it's fair.org is the website.
Welcome back, Peter.
How are you doing?
Good.
How are you?
I'm doing real good.
Uh, been a while.
Uh, now tell me this, uh, what wrong in the world is not because of the Ayatollah and the president of Iran?
Can you tell me that?
I'm not sure.
It, they do have sort of a, it's sort of a catch all category where any, anything that's going on in the world can be traced back directly or indirectly to something that Iran is doing or not doing.
So we're in a situation now where there's a bit of a line shift.
We've been told to worry about Iran arming Iraqi insurgent groups for the past couple of years on and off.
You know, we, there hasn't been a consistent propaganda message in the, in the media.
It's been, I think, opportunistic when we're supposed to worry about this.
We're supposed to worry about this.
Now it's Iran helping Al Qaeda, which is a totally different ball of wax.
And I think a story that's even more implausible than the Iraq story.
Well, you know, there was this complicated thing where, uh, an Iranian diplomat got seized by Al Qaeda or Taliban types in Pakistan.
And then they made a deal where supposedly they let bin Laden's son off a house arrest and, and this guy El Adel as well, but, um, really, I mean, I thought that all that meant was that, wow, they'd been keeping them on house arrest this whole time and, you know, we put them in the position of having to make that deal when their guy, I mean, we gave them that chip.
We could have traded MEK terrorists for their Al Qaeda captives long ago.
And instead we left them with that chip, uh, to bargain with when one of their diplomats got kidnapped.
Yeah.
I think one of the interesting things in looking at these stories about Iranian meddling, the first thing you have to remember, and it's sometimes overlooked because, you know, you're not accustomed to look in the world this way, but, uh, the, the core concern from the United States, from policy elites and politicians and military leaders is that Iran shouldn't meddle in our Iraq war.
Um, this is absurd on its face.
Uh, we cannot give ourselves license to bomb and invade a country and then complain that the neighbors have ideas about what should happen there.
Uh, it's just completely crazy, but that is the sort of political position that we're supposed to believe is a serious one and one that should be respected and treated as if it were, uh, sort of rational.
Uh, so it's entirely rational for Iran to have ideas.
It's entirely rational for Iran to make certain policy decisions based on what it thinks are its interests, because that's what countries do.
Every move, and you mentioned some of the context or the backdrop for these stories is considered some kind of devious scheme on the part of Iran.
And I think that's the problem and the propaganda problem with the media coverage, we went through this, you know, I want to say at least twice, but I know in 2007, early 2007, there was a wave of hysterical reporting in the New York times and other outlets about Iran supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents.
Uh, these were the EFPs exposed, explosively formed projectiles.
We were told that there was no way for Iraq to, or the Iraqi insurgents to manufacture these.
They were coming across the border.
The implication and all the reporting was that the Iranian government was either behind this or knew it was going on and was sort of winking and allowing it to happen.
Um, there was a flood of stories in the times by, uh, Michael Gordon and other reporters trying to make this case always based on a torrent of anonymous officials.
Uh, I remember they were planning to have a big press briefing in February of 2007 and unveil the smoking gun evidence.
And it was canceled at the last minute.
I remember watching an ABC report, uh, that was covering all the allegations and then noted that they didn't even have a press briefing to unveil the allegations.
So they didn't actually make the case public, but they told the reporters what they were going to say.
And the reporters dutifully scribbled it down and reported it as if it were fact we're in the same situation here where the treasury department announces sanctions against six people who they say are instrumental in, in financing, uh, Al Qaeda, getting operatives and money to Pakistan.
And what they're saying is that this is all happening via Iran.
And again, there isn't an, an explicit acknowledgement or there isn't any proof that Iran's government is instrumental in facilitating this or participating in this, but that's the implication either from the anonymous U S officials who are saying it or from the U S officials at the treasury department who are saying it on the record, they have made no evidence available to support this.
But I think the, the, the history indicates to them at least that you don't need to, you say it and you say it often enough and you say it directly and people just believe it.
There was this line in the time story about it last week that said the, the officials, the U S officials said the sanctions were meaningful because they would serve to demonstrate that Iran was working with Al Qaeda.
Uh, that's a crazy standard of, of proof for a journalist to accept that because a U S official says it's true, that means it's true.
But that's, I think what we're dealing with, with a lot of the propagandistic coverage of Iran.
That's funny.
It's like something Donald Rumsfeld would say.
Of course we thought there was chemical weapons or else why would we address the soldiers all up in chemical weapons suits?
Exactly.
Um, yeah, well now, um, I guess it is possible, right?
That, uh, the Iranian government or intelligence agencies or whatever, uh, might find a common cause with, uh, Al Qaeda on, on this project or the other.
Basically you're making the case that the times is running this story without really proving anything.
They're just kind of repeating anonymous government officials in the same sort of Michael Gordon-esque manner here.
Yeah.
You know what I mean?
We were, I think people who were, who were critical of this kind of reporting in 2007 when it was, you know, Shiite Iran arming Sunni militias in Iraq were saying, well, you know, there are a lot of reasons why this is implausible.
Um, I remember Juan Cole at the time was arguing that if anything, the money or the, the weapons are probably going to, or winding up with, uh, Shiite militias in Iraq that were aligned with the political leadership in Iraq that were our nominal allies.
So, you know, there are cases where powerful foreign policy makes for strange bedfellows and Sunnis and Shiites maybe working together.
It's, it's any of this could theoretically be happening.
Uh, the burden on reporters of course is to prove that or to show why you should overcome this tremendous logical hurdle in order to believe these stories.
And I don't think the reporters in these cases are doing it.
They're, they're reporting these stories about the treasury sanctions and Iran working out with Al Qaeda because officials are saying it's true.
And, you know, the best of these stories, and there was a wave of them last week, say merely that, uh, specialists and experts find this kind of implausible.
Uh, but if it is implausible, then you need to get to the bottom of why you think it is that officials are saying this, or you need to strenuously question them.
And there's no evidence that any of that's going on.
Right.
Well, and that's the thing too, is there's, it's not just that, uh, you have a Sunni Shia divide there, uh, cause after all, you know, criminals will make deals and I, I would include Al Qaeda and the, uh, Iranian government in that, you know, who knows, but there's actual substance, there's reason to believe that they would not, you know, if you go back over the years, uh, looking at the leverage work, for example, about, uh, you know, the burnt offering.
And, uh, as I was alluding to earlier with, uh, Al Idle and, uh, supposedly one of Bin Laden's sons, they'd been on house arrest for 10 years in Iran.
They tried to make a deal with us where they would trade them for the Mujahideen Al-Khalq, uh, these kinds of things.
So, um, it's not just the Sunni Shia thing.
There's actual, you know, demonstrated proof over the years of the Iranian government's restraint on these people, uh, rather than, uh, cooperation with them.
Yeah.
And I think one of the fascinating things about one of the stories, uh, that was, that, that cropped up last week, there was a quote at the bottom of one of them, I want to say it was the New York Times story.
And it was from David Petraeus acknowledging that Iran's record on Al Qaeda includes subjecting Al Qaeda operatives to house arrest and keeping them locked down, uh, presumably in order to try to ingratiate themselves toward other governments, particularly the United States.
And so his conclusion was, so you never know where, whether Iran's coming or going on this.
Well, it, it does suggest that their history shows that they've, they've tried to do what the, the, the West or the United States wanted with Al Qaeda operatives and it hasn't gotten them very much.
Boy, if America can't make cause with them over a common enemy, how can we ever?
All right.
We'll be right back.
Peter Hart from FAIR, everybody.
All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
It's anti-war radio.
I'm Scott Horton.
I'm talking with Peter Hart from FAIRness and Accuracy in Reporting.
And we're talking about the slew of articles recently.
Uh, this, uh, New York Times piece would be the, uh, penultimate example I guess.
Helene Cooper, Treasury accuses Iran of aiding Al Qaeda.
And it even says right in here, doesn't it, Peter, that, uh, the treasury did not name any Iranian government officials in Thursday's action.
So they have all these background quotes going, yeah, this is all about the Iranian government when actually even the case that they're making on paper doesn't include the Iranian government.
No, no, there isn't anyone who was named.
Uh, and presumably there's no one who's unnamed who's indicted, uh, that's connected directly with the Iranian government, unless you believe these treasury sources.
Actually, the whole thing is watched and encouraged or tolerated by the Iranian government.
If they could make that case, one would assume that they would make it.
I think you always have to use that as your standard when you look at these, this kind of official enemy reporting.
When official Washington is declaring that the enemy is doing X and the proof is these people who we say are close to the official enemy are doing it, uh, you know, then you have to assume that they don't have the goods.
Uh, I think that's a safe assumption and one that guides, uh, criticism of us policy, particularly toward Iran, where, uh, there is no seemingly no, uh, sanction for saying things that are exaggerated or untrue or hard to prove.
You can make literally any accusation you want and it seems to fly without anyone stopping you or, or noticing.
Uh, there are a couple of foreign policy stories that are like this and Iran just happens to be, I think the principal example right now where, uh, exaggerating or misleading people is not, uh, uh, sanctioned.
There isn't a price to be paid for, for doing this.
I mean, the operatives here are mostly from what they can say about that are mostly Al Qaeda officials or people very close to Al Qaeda who would theoretically be involved in a, in a gamble to pursue or to, to follow recruits and money to Al Qaeda.
Uh, but that makes it a, uh, sanctions project directed against Al Qaeda, which I think makes a lot more sense than one that implicates or points a finger at Iran.
But that's the story that we're being told to believe and it just doesn't add up.
The other thing that I think is interesting is taking it for granted that any of this is right at all.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, you have to, you have to give yourself, you know, I have to make several leaps here, but even if you wanted to say there's probably something like this happening, uh, it, so there's, there's a long way to go before you can say Iran is involved in this.
And it does seem to me that these stories come and go depending on U.S. debates about troop levels in, in Iraq or anywhere else.
Um, it seems to me that the last time we went through this with Iran, we were having a serious discussion about whether Iraq, whether there should be a surge in Iraq or whether we should start pulling troops out.
Um, we're still having that discussion about whether we should stay and for how long in Iraq.
So it, it, to me, the timing is peculiar and I think people should take, take notice of this, but when there is a suggestion that we could wind down one of the many wars the United States is involved in, out comes the Iran card and suddenly we have to watch Iran's influence in Iraq and we have to watch Iran's influence over the war in Afghanistan.
And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that policy makers in Washington are going to use these kinds of stories as leverage in the debate over never leaving Iraq or never leaving Afghanistan.
Um, just because we were lied into the war in Iraq doesn't mean that they can't lie about the reasons for staying in Iraq.
Right.
But it, all this ends up like some Terry Gilliam flick or something.
When, as you pointed out before, uh, in the case of Iraq, uh, we fought for the people that, that the Iranians prefer best and the same thing's going on in Afghanistan as well.
So the whole idea, even the premise that they're working against us in either country is just, doesn't even make sense on its face.
You know, it's a lot more than just that Sunni-Shia divide or something.
I mean, we're talking about, we know who their friends are in, in the different factions in those countries.
Yeah.
You know, the, I think the suspicion in the waning years of the Bush year administration was that there was going to be some plan to attack Iran, either the United States or Israel.
That seems less, less and less likely or, or feasible given the state of the U.S. military and whether or not anything like that could happen or whether the United States was crazy enough to actually do something like that.
Uh, but this is warfare of a different kind where you make a serious and unsupported allegations about a government's involvement in terrorism seemingly in an attempt to try to extract something from them or to try to send a message to them about, uh, what you might pursue against them.
I think those are the, that's the way to read some of these stories that, you know, we're not seriously considering a military strike against Iran, one would hope, but the war can be waged differently.
And in this case, the war is waged via accusations that Iran is cozy with our mortal enemies in Al Qaeda.
Uh, there's a serious allegations and, you know, one would hope that a press corps that takes its responsibility seriously would remember that it wasn't that long ago that the United States government was lying to people about Iraq to launch a war.
And, uh, you know, you don't think the bar has to be set that high, that if you're covering, uh, political leaders and their claims about the devious nature of official enemies, one should ask serious questions about whether they have the evidence to prove those allegations.
Um, but the question is always like, you know, did anyone learn any lessons from Iraq?
And, you know, the answer is always the same.
No.
I mean, what you're saying, it's great advice to the listeners, but what about to Helene Cooper and the people at the New York times?
I mean, I don't understand this.
I know some reporters I've been, I've interviewed a lot of them before, for example, and it seems to me like, you know, the, I thought the job was to try to get at the truth, not just, I got a second source to tell me the same thing.
So I can print it.
Right.
I mean, you're Helene Cooper's job is to try to tell us what is actually going on, isn't it?
Yeah.
And you know, the interesting thing about these stories is that you have, um, you have one on the record source at the treasury department, but you can also get anonymous officials to push a little bit harder and you quote them because they flesh out some of the case that apparently people don't want to say, um, publicly, you know, one of the, I think the hallmarks to understanding anonymous sources is that someone in the government wants to float an idea, but they don't want to have their name attached to it because there are some people who I think believe that rightly that lying is something that you shouldn't do.
Um, so you don't want to have your name next to a lie, but you might not be bothered by your words being attributed to a senior administration official or something like that, or who had to speak on the condition of anonymity that gives these people a license to say literally anything they want because the conventions of journalism say you don't burn people after you've granted them anonymity.
And we've gone through a series of scandals in beltway media where we understand that the granting of anonymity is kind of pro forma, that if you want to float whatever series you want with some of the big papers in the networks, you just go ahead and do it.
And anonymity is all but assumed, if not granted outright.
So we do have a, I think a couple of problems with understanding how the media work in this regard.
Clearly, it's not the way you and I think they do their jobs.
And the other problem, of course, is that there isn't a lot of pushback from another side.
You know, the only people who really speak out against these things that will be quoted are Iranian government officials.
And having an Iranian government official either in Tehran or the ambassador here in New York or Washington saying, these are fabrications, we're not doing anything of the sort, I think most readers would look at that and think, well, of course the Iranians say they're not doing anything.
We've got all of these U.S. officials here to trust.
And that's a very dangerous, dangerous game.
I mean, to run up to the Iraq War, people always forget this, but Iraqi officials, you know, you shouldn't take their claims at face value, but they were coming out and saying, we do not have any of these weapons of mass destruction.
And, you know, people looked at it and laughed because, of course, the Iraqis are going to say these kinds of things.
Of course, they're going to mislead us.
Of course, they're going to do their propaganda when, in fact, they were the ones telling the truth.
Right.
Well, and as you say, it all comes down to accountability, and there really is no accountability.
It's not too much different than when I was a kid.
I remember learning the hard way that I guess I remember my dad saying that what Dan Rather said, no, actually, that's not quite right.
And I expected that the next day, Tom Brokaw was going to call him on it.
I tuned in to Tom Brokaw.
I was like nine or something.
I tuned in to Tom Brokaw to hear him say, hey, everybody, Dan Rather got it wrong because they're the competition.
Right.
But he didn't.
There nobody called each other out.
And so there was only the three of them back then.
But it's really, as you said, there's you can tell any lie that you want about Iran.
There's no accountability.
There's no comeuppance for it whatsoever.
Any of these people from Michael Gordon or David Sanger or anybody at The Times or The Post or anywhere else, they can just go on and on and on.
George John at the AP, I like calling him out, too.
Yeah, I mean, I think there were four stories that floated this, you know, New York Times, Associated Press, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal.
You had to read them very carefully to discern which one of them might have been the most skeptical.
They were basically the same story written four different ways.
And you multiply that by 100.
And that gives you a sense of what the mainstream media look like on most days.
Yeah, indeed.
Well, you know what?
It's still not true that there's no accountability because there's still fairness and accuracy in reporting at fair dot org.
Thank you very much for your time on the show today, Peter.
Thank you.
That's fair.org, everybody.
Peter Hart and the gang.
Check him out.
We'll be right back.
