Half the story on CNN
Want something close to the truth? Better check your sources
February 20, 2007
Nathan Lowther, The Martlet (University of Victoria)
VICTORIA (CUP) — Critically examining several sources sounds like something from an essay outline. But outside the classroom, we must do this to get an informed idea of global politics. A recent CNN broadcast on Iran’s nuclear ambition is a good example of how mainstream media shows only part of the story.
Early in January, a senior Iranian legislator announced that Iran had begun to install 3,000 new centrifuges, devices used in enriching uranium to produce nuclear power. That’s up from the 350 they’d been running since April last year.
The claim was quickly denied by Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization’s public relations department, but it still made headlines. Watching CNN, I saw the story told with the snazzy graphics they’re so (in)famous for.
Using a nice bullet-point format that would make any PowerPointer proud, CNN informed their viewers that Iran could have the 3,000 centrifuges installed by March. The next line was short and to the point: “3,000 centrifuges = 1 nuclear bomb.” The segment ended with the report that Tehran had refused 38 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors.
And that was it. The way the graphics read, Iran was ramping up their enrichment program, booting out those pesky inspectors and preparing to finish their first nuclear bomb right around the time we students are finishing our final exams.
But the report was seriously misleading. Of course, to be fair, it is possible CNN returned to the story later in the evening and brought more than flash cards. They may very well have broken down the whole scenario, giving in-depth, expert analysis to all the possible implications. But if they did, I missed it, and likely so did many other viewers.
The problem I have with the CNN broadcast is the selectiveness of the information presented. It’s true that those 3,000 centrifuges could result in a nuclear bomb. But, technically speaking, so could 350 — it’s just a matter of how quickly. However, the only time reference given by CNN was that the centrifuges might be installed by March and that “3,000 centrifuges = 1 nuclear bomb.”
I had to search other news sources to find the rest of the story. A few clicks to Reuters.com and IISS.org lead me to facts left out of the broadcast.
First, the booted-out inspectors, who Reuters identifies as citizens of France, Germany, Britain and Canada, are 38 of a pool of 200 and have been barred by Tehran in response to those countries’ acceptance of UN sanctions against Iran. A Vienna diplomat put it this way: “The IAEA has enough inspectors in Iran — 38 off the list does not affect ongoing verification. This is a political signal to respond to Western pressure.”
Then there is the more important question: How far away is Iran from having the capacity to build a nuclear weapon? So far, according to Reuters, Iran has only enriched their uranium about three to five per cent. It requires over 80 per cent to be used in a weapon.
The extra centrifuges will potentially allow Iran to reach that level much faster. According to London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), 3,000 centrifuges operating with no IAEA safeguards could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb in 271 days.
The IAEA head, Mohamed ElBaradei, told Reuters in mid-January that he agrees with former U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte that Iran is four to nine years away from being able to make a bomb.
CNN cut the core facts for flashy news. That’s what sells. But having mainstream media sources that provoke knee-jerk emotional responses from their viewers does nothing to encourage rational and informed discourse.
Now you go...
Got something to say?