Peace

disclaimers: this is a political sort of entry. I can't claim it to be well-researched or even an educated opinion (much less well-written). It rambles and it ends with questions. See, I don't have the answers, but I've heard a string of things that led me to these questions. The questions hold a fair amount of hope, but they're tinged with disappointment in the way things are. I'm not sure what, if anything, more I will do with these thoughts, but I want to remember them and I want to share them with the 5 or so people who keep reading my typed ramblings. If you're just here for the knitting, I'll be back to that soon.

I used to be skeptical of the idea of objective journalism. Lately, it seems to mean (to editor/publishers) that you must find an opposite position for every story you write/broadcast. There are things happening in the world that I don't think need a second opinion and I get tired of seeing them in the name of "fairness."

At the end of April, we went to an event at the Amerika Haus and listened to Anita Pratap talk about her career. She told us a story about working for Time Magazine. She had been at a polling place where she watched the ballot boxes being stuffed by military or government officials (ok, I'm sketchy on the details, but bear with me). She turned in her story and included the adjective "blatant." Her editor called and reminded her (emphatically) that as a reporter she shouldn't use adjectives. It was her job to record what she saw, not her opinion about it. She had to let the facts speak for themselves. So, I understand objective journalism again. It makes sense to me. Now, there is potential for which stories are told limiting the objectivity, but that's another thing to worry about and I'm not ready to tackle that just yet. I'm back in the pro- (real) objectivity camp.

Fast forward to a week or so ago. We were watching CNN World News (as we often do) and there was a story about Iran's nuclear program. The reporter stated simply that Ahmadinejad has consistently stated that the program is exclusively intended for (peaceful) domestic power. (so far: good, objective report, but then...) He moved on to say that "we" don't really know whether they're telling the truth and that's why "The West" is so afraid. He didn't present any evidence contradicting Iran's official position. He didn't even have a quote from anyone in "The West" admitting to being afraid, but he told me that "we" are. And it made me mad. I'm not sure that I would be so afraid if the "news" wasn't telling me that I should be. And he couldn't give me anything real to be afraid of. He might as well have said, "well, we don't know whether there are monsters under your bed, so you should be worried enough that you won't sleep tonight."

I do understand that relations between Iran and the US have been strained for a long time and that makes it hard for "us" to trust "them." But, since I watched that story on CNN, I've been wondering: what if "we" chose to believe "them?" What would our world look like if, just this one time, our leaders decided to take Ahmadinejad at his word?