Mainstream Media Coverage Misses the Point - Ahmadinejad at Columbia

By SARAH LEONARD

Sarah Leonard is a guest blogger for Future Majority. She is currently a student at Columbia University and a Fellow of the Roosevelt Institution at Columbia University.

The American media has propagated a tremendous falsehood with regard to President Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University. The bottom line, with remarkably little variance across major news networks, has been that Columbia is being un-American by engaging in controversial free debate.

This is hardly shocking from conservative sources, such as FOX news. Bill O’Reilly has been reveling in this story for days now, since it combines his two favorite subjects for condemnation – the Ivy League and a Muslim with a podium. He won’t have to imagine a new liberal outrage for at least a few more days.

But the journalistic travesty committed by more mainstream networks, not usual shills for conservative politicians, has been chilling. The typical news segment follows this pattern: a reporter menacingly describes Ahmadinejad’s ethical and political crimes. The reporter then notes that this bad man will not be allowed to lay a wreath at Ground Zero. But, the voiceover adds, Columbia will be welcoming the Iranian President on Monday! Cut to head-shaking anchor.

The clear implication of each of these sorry excuses for reporting is that Columbia University is the only place un-American enough to host this man. He’s been rejected by the NYPD at Ground Zero, but welcomed by Lee Bollinger at Columbia. This reporting fails to address the real issue of debate and diplomatic engagement, instead regurgitating right-wing talking points in sanitized form.

The debate that the mainstream media is missing is one not only of free speech at our nation’s universities, but the value of debate as opposed to isolation. The freedom of students to directly challenge Ahmadinjad and his brutal regime in Iran demonstrates the opening of communication channels long sealed shut. America’s isolationist policies toward Iran have not contributed to progress or stability in the region. Furthermore, the same right-wing pundits and mainstream journalists who asssert or imply Columbia’s lack of proper patriotism, regularly treat Iran as a looming threat while failing to examine the complexities of the problem. By failing to ask their own tough questions about Iran while condemning students who would engage in debate, the media has sought to reduce an internationally significant leader to a vague threat – an easy target for future American animosity, as fostered by the Bush administration.

Columbia University has entered this debate despite strong opposition. Hosting and challenging a brutal world leader is not easy – it has repercussions among academics who understandably object to Ahmadinejad’s presence, and with politicians eager to separate themselves from controversy. Columbia University has been the subject of negative press from a variety of sources and has received little outside support for its administrators’ decision. But the potential benefits of the event are powerful. Ahmadinejad is accustomed to the security offered by his own oppressive policies. What better way to challenge such oppression than by using our first amendment rights to demand that he answer for his behavior? How can we hope to change Iran’s behavior if we are not willing to both question unacceptable behavior, and also to hear the answers? And this is where the media must engage – by discussing not only the horror of Ahmadinejad’s presidency, but the methods by which we can counter destructive policies with dialogue, rather than looking first to violence and another disastrous war.