Conservative?

It's time to take back the word "conservative." Alternative title for this post:

Finally, A Conservative the New York Times Can Like

Not four weeks ago, the esteemed panel at Fox Newswatch, a show devoted to critiquing the media, especially journalists, discussed the use of the adjective "conservative." It turns out that the Media Research Center did a study and found that the word "conservative" was used seven times more often than the word "liberal" in morning news shows. The obvious inference to be drawn is that journalist and broadcasters feel that their audience needs to be apprised of the "conservative" nature of x in order for said audience to discern the reliability of x. The the conclusion of the first two asked was that this was a clear indicator of bias. When Neal Gabler's turn came, he exploded and called the research group "clowns." Cal Thomas responds:

Look, here's another example. He just called them clowns. See, another label. Why do you have to do that? Why don't you just attack the substance of their argument?

The fact is that people are labeled. In the old days of journalism, when an African-American was involved in a crime, the newspaper would put "Joe Smith, a Negro." Well, thank God we've gotten away from that.

Why do we have to use labels at all? Why can't there just ideas be presented and let people make up their mind whether they're liberal or conservative?

Jim Pinkerton then got to the point of the bias: Implicitly, the journalist and those who aren't labeled are "moderate" and those that are labeled are "the crazy ideologues."

So let's take a look at the way the New York Times uses the word "conservative." Do we need to bore you with examples? Mainstream politicians are "conservative." Christians and most religious types are "conservative" especially if they are in conflict with their [reasonable] brethren over gay marriage, women in the priesthood, etc. Anyone who looks at a picture of Dick Cheney and doesn't throw up is "conservative." Karl Rove is evil and "conservative" or is that evil because he's "conservative?" Ted Kennedy is never a"liberal". Noam Chomsky is never a "liberal". The entire editorial staff of the New York Times is solid middle-of the-road objectivity. Ward Churchill is never a "liberal." Come to think of it, calling Ward Churchill a "liberal" would be like calling Adolf Hitler a "conservative."

By George, we're may be on to something.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, mayor of Tehran and president-elect of Iran, has been called variously by the New York Times "a hardliner," an "ultra conservative" and a "conservative." Oddly, the Times' man in Tehran, Michael Slackman, never refers to the nature of that "conservatism." After reading and skimming several of his many articles about the Iranian presidential elections, I came away thinking Mr. Ahmadinejad a rather likable chap. He appeals to the poor, is seen as the alternative to the corrupt status quo, is affable and unassuming, etc and so on. How glorious it would be to have no intellectual curiosity at these times, because the idea of a beleaguered country like Iran and its very oppressed people having such a charming fellow at the helm eases the soul. And if there wern't those niggling little tips like "closely tied to the Basij and the Revolutionary Guard," we all could sleep well tonight. And if I didn't know, as millions of Iranians do, as President Bush and Secretary Rice have said, that these elections were a sham and a fraud from the git-go, I could stop blogging in time to go to Quid 3's house for white chicken chili, cold beer and some serious critiquing of Mara Eliason's fashion choices.

But I know all this stuff.

I just didn't learn it from the front page, above the fold, four times in two weeks, Michael Slackman-bylined articles in the newspaper of record.

OK, so I was all affronted that this guy is called "conservative" by the NYT. He is actually the Enforcer for the Islamist clerics who run Iran, who are not elected but who choose which candidates will run and then "certify" the elections. He is, according to the very "conservative" Los Angeles Times, "A former Revolutionary Guard and instructor for the pro-government Basiji militia." The Basiji are the volunteer militia that go around enforcing Islamic law. They roam the streets and if you are a woman who is showing too much hair, too much ankle or are fraternizing (talking to, looking at in the same room with) a member of the opposite gender, you get dragged out into the street and are beaten about with sticks and clubs. Guys can also get the treatment, though not for showing too much hair (pity).

Mr. Amadinejad instructs men in the finer points of ganging up on women and beating them. In public. With clubs and sticks. In the name of Allah. He's "conservative."

To their credit, the real Islamic extremists don't think Mr. Ahmadinejad is conservative. Mr. Slackman even says so:

To much of the world, and to much of Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad, 49, is an unknown figure, a man who seemed to rise out of nowhere to become a credible presidential candidate. If he is elected, his supporters say, Iran will change a lot. A leading hard-line figure, and a friend of Mr. Ahmadinejad, Hossein Shariatmadari, said Wednesday in an interview that he rejected the label "conservative" for Mr. Ahmadinejad.

"He is a fundamentalist," said Mr. Shariatmadari, who is a close ally of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and is the editor of the nation's most conservative daily newspaper, Kayhan. By that, he explained, he meant someone who adheres strictly to Islamic values.

If Mr. Ahmadinejad wins, conservatives - or fundamentalists - will have a monopoly on power. While the reformers, who control the government, were often stymied in their objectives in the last eight years, their voice of moderation will no longer be at the table.

"Out of nowhere:" that's a good one: he has never run in an election before; he was appointed mayor of Tehran two years ago. In this article, Mr Ahmadinejad is an "upstart." Ooh, a "fundamentalist" "upstart" about to embark on his first electoral "caper!"

Aside: I guess the Kayan is one of the newspapers that wasn't shut down this election cycle.

(hat tip: Command Post: California Yankee)

For good reporting that manages to make the complexitites of the Iranian election understandable to the average reader (I am the test case) the Washington Post is recommended. For more advanced study (the nitty gritty) but still written for non-Iranian audience, go to Michael Ledeen. Regime Change Iran and Publius Pundit are two blogs, among many, that also cover Iranian politics very well. Regime Change Iran recently published An Open Letter to The International Media In Iran which asked that they really do the work to report what was going on during the election. I guess Michael Slackman didn't get the memo.