THE PRESIDENT of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, spoke at Columbia University on Monday and the event caused a stir.The president of Columbia told the Iranian leader, “Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.”
The American media came down hard on Ahmadinejad. Look at this New York Daily News story headline.
The Iranian press, however, reported that Ahmadinejad had an incredibly successful trip.
Which media got the story correct?
12 comments:
I agree with the concept of free speech and people should be allow to talk freely although Ahmadinejad says some hurtful things. Yet I cannot help but think that Columbia only invited him to speak to cause controversy. Both presses have their motives but from my perspective his speech resembled his previous UN speech in some ways so I would say the American press got it more right.
Neither. Whoever wrote this article (the nydaily news one) did a poor job. The name calling (whether you believe it to be true or not) doesn't give the article color, it just gets old and repetitive. He contradicts himself as well when he starts off saying Columbia U. welcomed Ahmadinejad with open arms. Doesn't the entire article disprove this? If he was being sarcastic, it wasn't working for him.
Anyways. I don't think Ahmadinejad accomplished anything, other than making Americans think he is as uneducated, crazy as ever.
I think I criticized the writers more than I answered the question, but oh well, food for thought.
I think this was a win-win situation for both medias. Iran was able to send a message to its people that their leader is a triumphant fighter who convinced the audience that he had the answers (not true), which the American media was able to paint the Iran president out to be an ignorant baffoon (not true, although by our standards it would obviously seem to be the case). Columbia University got press, the President of the school got his name in the paper, and little has changed when it comes to Iran-American relations, as well as when it comes to opinions regarding the "other side".
Nothing has changed. End of story.
Interesting.
First, the students of Columbia that opted to go and sit in the speech was very disrespectful. So, if Mr. Ahmadinejad went back to Iran and spoke poorly of the American people, that is how the Columbia students represented the nation. The individual that was allowed to address the president of Iran, should have been more mindful of his words. I can agree that being objective to an individual with such a reputation is a inner battle more complex than the war in Iraq, but mothers say it best "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say it all."
I applaude Columbia to have the excuse me to say, but "balls" to have such a man speak in their university. Whether it was done for educational purposes or controversy, it took a lot to take that chance.
I must disagree that the president of Iran came across as uneducated. He could have easily said statements much worst and spoke his mind, but he answered in a way both avoiding more hostility, but getting his point across.
I just think that Americans are so quick to point a finger before they learn of things from both side. The students should have took it as a chance of a lifetime to hear the 'enemy' speak.
-Myriam Wilson
How are we going to ease tension with Iran by calling their president uneducated and cruel? We don't want them to use nuclear power, but we refuse to speak civilly. This is a disgrace - the president of Iran comes to America to teach us something and we treat him with disrespect, and the president of one of our leading universities resorts to name-calling. What a bunch of children.
both medias are correct...they used their own perspectives...to the US Ahmadinejad's speech seemed profound, cruel, even slightly rude. But to Iran he accomplished what he set out to do in America, so for them the trip was successful. You can't really compare the stories because they are from too completely different cultures and both countries see the world totally different. Now if both of these stories were written in america, that would be an interesting discussion!
-CHELSEA LEPOSA
Enea said...
Every news tells a different version of a story. People need to look at both of the stories and see wich one seems more acurate.
I don't care who is invited to talk at a school. However, to bring someone there just to call him "petty and cruel" or "astonishingly uneducated" is completely uncalled for. If Bollinger had only cruel things to say, he should have merely introduced him as the Iranian President. I think the fact that he has committed many atrocities should not play a factor in how one introduces him, especially if the speaker was the one who invited him. That portrays America as cruel and heartless, and I don't want to be thought of in that way just because Columbia wanted controversy.
~Kim Wood
Heh. Maybe they both did and he MENT to get blasted by american media.
Both stories are correct because they reported on what they saw and how they saw it. There are always two sides to an argument and every side will see things differently.
I don't think the media covered this story correctly or incorrectly. They simply reported what they saw, maybe a little too harshly for some peoples' taste. I believe they could have balanced out the article a little better by getting a more in depth opinion of both sides of the story and refrained from using some of the degrading language.
I agree with the freedom of speech argument and the School of International and Public Affairs Dean. His statement that he would invite anyone for a little, "academic give and take," was not what everyone wanted to hear, but that's what he's there for right? To provide education.
Enea said...
The American media and the Iranian press said different stories about the event. Someone is lying and I do not think that New York Daily News would lie, because they have the best newspapers in the U.S. I do not know the relationship between the Iran president and the Iran press, but I think that they tried to protect their president.
Post a Comment