Contrasting perspectives

Here's a brief survey of the coverage given to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's address to the United Nations.

From the Star:

Ahmadinejad, elected in June, insisted his country wanted to produce nuclear power for peaceful purposes only.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates its previously and repeatedly declared position that in accordance with our religious principles, pursuit of nuclear weapons is prohibited," he said.

But while taking a defiant line, Ahmadinejad stressed that co-operation with the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, would be the "centrepiece of our nuclear policy" in the future.

In general, the tone of the Star's article makes Ahmadinejad out to be reasonable and conciliatory, having no desire to produce nuclear weapons and pointing out the hypocrisy of the U.S. in maintaining its own stockpiles. And it's hard to believe that the intended tone of the speech would be anything but. But then, not everybody sees the speech the same way...

Here's the Washington Post's take:

On Saturday, dozens of international diplomats, including the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany, gathered at the United Nations to hear how Ahmadinejad planned to stave off a crisis.

Instead his speech, followed by a confused hour-long news conference, was able to do what weeks of high-level U.S. diplomacy had not: convince skeptical allies that Iran may, in fact, use its nuclear energy program to build atomic bombs.

It is even possible for both of the above analyses to be based on the same speech? The Post focuses on a lot of rhetoric which, while undoubtedly offensive, doesn't seem to relate to the nuclear issue. It also glosses over the offer of international cooperation, and doesn't mention the assurance that nuclear weapons wouldn't be pursued. Now, I'm all for taking a healthy dose of skepticism to what's bound to be a self-interested address, but how exactly does Ahmadinejad's saying one thing become proof of the opposite?

There is a third option, that being the take from the AP:

In a fiery speech to the UN General Assembly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defiantly rejected the European offer of economic incentives in exchange for Iran giving up its uranium enrichment program.

Ahmadinejad denied his nation had any intention of producing nuclear weapons. To prove that, he offered foreign countries and companies a role in Iran's nuclear energy production...

Iran said Sunday that it has no plans to resume uranium enrichment soon but warned that it might change its mind if the IAEA were to ask the Security Council to consider sanctions.

"Enrichment is not on the agenda for the time being, but if the IAEA meeting on Monday leads to radical results, we will make our decision to correspond to that," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said.

Just a friendly reminder to keep an eye out for contrasting coverage - even among what are generally seen as mainstream news outlets. Whether a given action was really a provocation or a conciliatory gesture is entirely in the eye of the beholder...and it's all too clear that media beholders are no less likely than political ones to assume that the facts fit with their opinions.

I'll avoid commenting further, other than to remind readers trying to decide which of the above to believe of the Post's recent willingness to serve undiluted Kool-Aid.