If you find this article informative and worthwhile, please support my work by donating if you can.

logo    Diane Sawyer and Ahmadinejad


Yesterday, December 21st, ABC News ran a story about Diane Sawyer's interview of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. She, like most mainstream American journalists, has long given up on any attempt to report real news, and is on Forbes Celebrity 100 list which otherwise consists almost entirely of entertainers and athletes.

Sawyer, a talking rag doll stuffed with sawdust, asked the Iranian president ridiculous questions in what was obviously an attempt to make Mr. Ahmadinejad look bad in the eyes of her American viewers.

For instance, she asked him about "a newly revealed secret document that purportedly shows Iran has been trying to develop a crucial component of a nuclear bomb." He said it was fake; she asked if he had any proof; he asked if she had any proof that it was authentic. Standoff? Not really! Sawyer failed to acknowledge that the American government and others routinely produce supposedly secret documents that turn out to be fakes. Has she forgotten the fake document about George Bush's service in the National Guard that got Dan Rather fired? Has she forgotten the faked document that Colin Powell displayed at the Security Council that claimed Iraq was purchasing aluminum tubes from Nigeria needed for an atomic weapons program? If anyone needed to provide proof of the document's authenticity, Sawyer did.

Second, she asked Ahmadinejad if he would "assure the West that Iran would never weaponize its nuclear material and turn it into a bomb." Of course, he refused to answer this question. How could he have answered it? Ahmadinejad will not be Iran's president forever, and even if he has no intention of weaponizing its nuclear material, who knows what future presidents of Iran or any other country, for that matter, will do? Unless she is brainless, Sawyer knew the question could not be answered and asked it just for that reason. She knew that she and ABC news could emphasize Ahmadinejad's refusal to answer and make him look bad.

Third, she asked him whether Iranians were free to demonstrate and say whatever they wished. Ahmadinejad rejected the suggestion that Iran doesn't tolerate criticism or street protests, saying "In Iran we have got freedom, more than what there is in America" and that Iranians can demonstrate if they have valid permits. Didn't Sawyer realize that permits are required in America too? Or was she dissembling? When Sawyer asked about the deaths of demonstrators during the recent demonstrations about the election results, did she conveniently forget about the deaths of student demonstrators at Kent State?

Fourth, she asked him about releasing Shane Bauer, Josh Fattal and Sarah Shourd, three Americans who claim to have innocently wandered across the Iranian border. "Are you still going to do your best to set them free?" Sawyer asked. "Yes," Ahmadinejad curtly replied. "But I have got a question to you. How do you know they have accidentally crossed into Iran? How do you know they were looking for waterfalls and forests?" Sawyer asked if there was evidence that the trio were anything but adventurous tourists, Ahmadinejad asked, what proof do you have that they were? Another standoff? Not really! After all, Bauer is a freelance journalist, Shourd is a writer, and Fattal is an environmental worker. No one asks how these three became "friends." They hale from different parts of America—Minnesota, California, and Oregon. Were they tourists in search of a waterfall or a trio in search of a story? Ahmadinejad said let the courts decide. If you were in a foreign country in search of a waterfall, wouldn't you hire a guide?

Sawyer, along with most mainstream journalists, has long abandoned anything that can be described as journalistic integrity. Her interview was meant to be sensational. (Oh, how that describes the American press!) She is engaging in nothing more than National Enquirer journalism. And she is not the only ABC "journalist" doing it.

Remember Martin Bashir's (or is it Basher's?) piece on Michael Jackson before his trial on child molestation. A hatchet piece if there ever was one; yet Martin wept crocodile tears after Jackson's untimely death. And there's Charlie Gibson (Gypson?) who interviewed President Obama recently. When Gibson asked the President why he approved sending more troops to Afghanistan, he allowed the President to get away with merely answering, "because I believe it's the right thing to do." How informative was that? Would any president ever admit that he did something because he believed it was the WRONG thing to do? Why didn't Gibson ask the president why? Because he really didn't care; the interview was not meant to elicit any useful information. Gibson interviewed the President just to interview the President, merely to get another feather for his bonnet.

When readers of this piece watch any mainstream news broadcast, they should ask themselves what of significance they learned that they didn't know beforehand. Much more often than not they will answer, "Nothing"! And if anyone asks why the popularity of the American mainstream press is dropping, that answer should answer the question.

One caveat: don't assume that this piece means that I approve of Mr. Ahmadinejad or Iran's political system. What I disapprove of is dishonest journalism. (12/23/2009)

©2009 John Kozy