Grand Rapids Press Supporting Government’s Iran Claims

Over the past week, the Grand Rapids Press, the major newspaper in West Michigan, has published a series of articles that appear to be designed to build support for the Bush administration’s Iran policy and possibly even building support for a military attack on Iran. The articles all stem from the context of heightened rhetoric from the Bush administration linking Iran to attacks on US soldiers in Iraq, with many of them relying on evidence presented at a briefing by United States military officials on the weekend of February 10. That briefing, conducted by officials who refused to be quoted and insisted on anonymity, presented what the military claimed was proof that the Iranian government is supplying insurgents in Iraq with weapons. the Grand Rapids Press ran a story based on an initial account of this briefing from the New York Times on Monday the 12th, relying on official sources to assert that Iran was supplying Iraqi insurgents with weapons. While publishing one story that was critical of this claim on the 13th, the Press accepted the premise of the military’s claim that the Iranian government wants to harm United States soldiers in Iraq. The Press’ support of this claim reached its apex on Wednesday the 14th, when it ran a front-page article titled “New type of bomb from Iran killed area soldier” in which reporter Ted Roelofs links Iran to the death of a local soldier.

Roelofs’ article was a lengthy and emotional piece that relied primarily on comments from the father of Army Spc. Brandon Stout, who was killed in Iraq on January 22 when his Humvee was attacked. Roelofs cites William Stout as saying that the Pentagon told him the attack was “bigger than the IED” and that the death of his soon was “instant” due to lethality of the bomb. Stout is also quoted as saying that the attack tells him “we are going to be in another war here with another country pretty soon.” Roelofs cites a briefing given by the United States military on Saturday as proof that weapons from Iran are being used to attack United States soldiers in Iraq, describing the United States military as scrambling to find ways to reinforce armor on Humvees to lessen the fatalities from these attacks. Aside from William Stout, who despite the tragic loss of his son, is clearly not an expert on the Iraq War or relations with Iran, Roelofs relies heavily on “official” sources, citing Defense Secretary Robert Gates, United States Congressional Representative Peter Hoekstra, and an “unnamed officer” cited in the Washington Post, all of whom supported the general assertion that Iran wants to attack United States soldiers in Iraq.

While appealing to the emotions of people who empathize with the suffering of a family of a soldier killed in Iraq, Roelofs’ piece relies on sources that have been greatly questioned in recent days. There have been several analyses calling into question specifics of the United States “evidence” laid out at the briefing, showing that it is part of an ongoing campaign of disinformation regarding Iran. Even some within the military and the corporate media have distanced themselves from the claims, yet the Grand Rapids Press story ends with Representative Hoekstra and William Stout calling for increased troop movements in Iraq to seal the border to prevent Iranian influence.

The basis for these claims was reporting in the New York Times over the weekend on Iran’s alleged supply of weapons to Iraqi insurgents. On Monday, February 12, the Grand Rapids Press reprinted a story from the New York Times by James Glanz under the title “Weapons Display indicts Iran, U.S. Says.” The story was based on a briefing by United States military officials on Saturday during which the officials displayed “their first public evidence” that “Iran supplies Shiite extremists in Iraq with some of the most lethal weapons in the war.” The article goes on to state that the weapons include canisters called “explosively formed penetrators or EFPs” and are “perhaps the most feared weapon faced by American and Iraqi troops” in Iraq. The article explains that the briefing was held “under strict security,” with the United States military showing an array of EFPs, mortar shells, and rocket-propelled grenades with serial numbers that the military claimed could be linked to Iran. The military also claimed that Iranian leaders have authorized smuggling the weapons into Iraq, an assertion made without evidence and under the insistence of anonymity.

The article cited “doubts” that people could have about the evidence due to the timing (the weapons had been known about since 2004) and the insistence on anonymity, but asserted, “the direct physical evidence presented on Sunday was extraordinary.” The article also attempted to appeal emotionally to its readers, stating that more than 170 Americans had been killed and 620 wounded with these weapons. It ended by concluding that “without specific evidence” the military claimed that the Iranian security apparatus, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force controlled the delivery of these weapons into Iraq an asserted that they could do so only with the knowledge of the Iranian government and their complicity.

While the initial report raised a number of serious allegations and was reprinted in numerous news sources, it has been widely discredited since the allegations against Iran first appeared in the New York Times on Saturday. The radio news program Democracy Now cited two striking similarities between the Times article and the articles that built support for the invasion of Iraq, an almost complete reliance on anonymous “official” sources and the authorship of Michael Gordon. Gordon played a major role in building support for the Iraq War, co-authoring a piece with Judith Miller alleging that the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction on September 8, 2002, a piece which was then used by Vice President Dick Cheney to state that it was not just the Bush administration asserting that Iraq had WMD, but also the New York Times. Critics have highlighted the fact that the New York Times has positioned itself over the past few decades as the official government paper and has been quick report the official stance of the United States, relying frequently on official sources to the exclusion of independent sources. This was particularly problematic with the piece on the alleged weapons from Iran, as the story failed to provide any context about the relationship between the Iranian government and Iraq. Moreover, it is also worth noting that not far into the article doubts are raised about the accuracy of the claims with the Times piece pointing out that there was no direct evidence presented, yet both the New York Times and the Grand Rapids Press locally ran the story under headlines that treated the allegations as fact rather than allegations.

Even when subsequent reporting raised some issues about the specifics of the United States’ claims, the corporate media–including the Grand Rapids Press–bought into the overall idea that Iran is threatening United States troops in Iraq. the Grand Rapids Press ran an article from the Washington Post on Tuesday the 13th titled “Top brass accuses Iran, not its leaders,” citing the fact that the Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had made comments on Monday saying that the United States had no information linking the Iranian government to the supply of weapons allegedly coming from Iran into Shiite insurgent groups in Iraq. He maintained that, “It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved” but said that he would “not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.” The version of the article printed by the Grand Rapids Press, greatly altered and edited from the original version that appeared in the Washington Post, included a denial from the Iranian government but concluded with State Department spokesman Sean McCormack stating that “the Iranians are up to their eyeballs in this activity.” This edit ended the article with more certainty than the original version in the Washington Post, which described how the Bush administration has been evasive and has referred reporters to multiple agencies and frequently refused to answer questions, while also cutting a quote critical of the administration’s policy on Iran from Democratic Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut. The placement is also important, as all stories reporting the involvement of the Iranian government have been on front page of the Grand Rapids Press, while this article was located on page A3.

In the Thursday, February 15 edition, the Grand Rapids Press ran a Newsday article by Craig Gordon under the headline “Bush rips Iran, but U.S. won’t attack.” That article, printed on page A5, discussed President Bush’s comments at a news conference in which he stated that the United States has no intention to attack Iran despite his blaming the Iranian government for a recent spate of deadly attacks on US soldiers. However, even as a number of sources within the government and outside of the government have raised significant doubts about Iran’s supplying weapons to Iraq, President Bush maintained that despite having no idea whether Iranians at the “highest levels” of the government were responsible, Bush continued to point the blame at Iran. The article quotes Bush saying that, “the idea that somehow we’re manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous,” showing that the Bush administration still believes the discredited evidence. Bush framed the issue within the context of needing to act to “protect our troops,” stating “we’re going to do something about that it, pure and simple.” Far from raising questions about earlier claims reported in the Grand Rapids Press, the article gives continued credence to those claims. Moreover, as was the case with previous reporting on the issue, this story relies exclusively on official sources within the government, with the only voices being present being Bush’s and that of Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton, who only said that she was “deeply concerned” and did not get into specifics of the claims. The article does not directly address the considerable debate over the accuracy of the Bush administration’s claims and instead bolsters the one-sided reporting on the topic in the Grand Rapids Press.

Even before the Press ran its initial article on the alleged weapons from Iran, a day before that article appeared, the Grand Rapids Press ran a story from the Associated Press titled “Bush Iran rhetoric echoes Iraq stance.” The story, written by Tom Raum of the Associated Press, examined some of the parallels between President George W. Bush’s “tough new stance on Iran and his military buildup in the Persian Gulf.” It begins by describing how the administration is “making allegations about Iran without providing proof,” while also making similar claims that Iran is behind the recent abduction and execution of five United States soldiers. The story cites President Bush’s recent assertions that he has no plans to invade Iran, but mentions that in recent days the United States has increased the naval presence in the Persian Gulf to the highest level since 2003, confirmed that the military has been given the authority to kill or capture Iranian agents “plotting attacks” on United States forces, and has armed Iran’s neighbors with Patriot missiles. The article cites only three sources, Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institute and advisor to the Iraq Study Group, and Zbigneiw Brezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s former National Security Advisor. The Press cut the article after a section in which it talks about how Bush is “betting” that he can prop up the Iraqi government and stop Iran’s supply of weapons and fighters to Iraq, omitting the remaining 287 words of an 819 word article. The 287 words omitted were significant, as they explained that Iran has denied these allegations and that “outside actors” like Iran are not considered “a major driver of violence” in Iraq by the National Intelligence Estimate. The original AP article also quoted additional sources both within and outside of the Bush administration to convey to readers that there is considerable difference of opinion over the best strategy for dealing with Iran.

This official ambiguity over how best to deal with the situation in Iran has been absent from the Grand Rapids Press over the past week, with the Press instead relying heavily on government sources and wire stories–supplemented by an emotional piece tying the death of a local soldier to weapons supplied by Iran–to build support for the Bush administration’s Iran policy. While the specific intentions of the Bush administration are unclear at this point, in light of recent statements, military maneuvering, and similarities to its public relations campaign used in 2003 to build support for the invasion of Iraq, there is a serious possibility that the administration is attempting to incrementally build support for an invasion of Iran. Consequently, the Grand Rapids Press needs to look critically both at its reporting of the Iraq invasion and the role that it played in building support for that war, as well as its recent coverage of Iran, and begin to ask critical questions. Both as journalists and as a major supplier of news to people living in West Michigan, the Press must position itself as a government watchdog rather than as a vehicle for amplifying the assertions of the government and military.

Related Posts:

1. Grand Rapids Press Continues to Reflect Government’s Position on US Occupation of Iraq
2. Study Shows Grand Rapids Press Iraq Coverage Over-Emphasizes Government Perspectives
3. Ehlers Claims War Vote a Mistake, Press Portrays him as Misled and Reluctant Supporter of War Despite his Consistent Record of Supporting the War
4. New Study on Press Coverage of Iraq and Iran
5. Antiwar Group Calls on Grand Rapids Press to Improve Iraq War Coverage

Tags: grand rapids, iran, iraq, media, michigan, war