One of Andrew's readers asks where the MSM is on Iran. The New York Times and numerous internet sites have wall-to-wall coverage, including Andrew's sterling work. Other outlets practically ignored the biggest story currently going on in the world over the weekend.
I haven't commented on it because other than the obvious--elections should result in the election of the person who got the most votes--I don't have anything to add. I know nothing about Iran, and I don't blog much about foreign policy because I don't know much about foreign policy.
But I think Andrew's reader's question is ultimately a business story.
Why doesn't the MSM have more coverage? Because they don't have the manpower. The cable networks are hamstrung by the fact that they don't have much footage of what's going on in Iran. As I watch, they're showing a combination of shots of peaceful protests in Western countries, lying propaganda footage from Iran's state television system, and random b-roll of unidentified protests in some unidentified country that does not seem to be Iran. This is less than must-see-TV.
print media is hamstrung by the fact that they've slashed their foreign
bureaus to the bone--and then amputated the bone. There are too few
journalists in too few places to cover a big story like this.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.