This is a follow up on the meeting between Iran and the US which happened yesterday. i tried to find out about the meeting yesterday, however there was little in the media as nothing had been released yet. just a recap – the meeting was primarily arranged to discuss Iran’s involvement with Iraq – both countries want Iran to be more involved with Iraq anda success: Iran

Iranian ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi described his landmark meeting with his US counterpart in Baghdad on Monday as a success and said there were plans for future meetings.

Kazemi Qomi said he told US ambassador Ryan Crocker about the importance of Iraqi forces assuming control of security in the country, and said that they needed to be provided with the necessary equipment to achieve this.

“During this negotiation,” he added. “There was a proposal to form a security commission backed by the Iraqi government to help it defend the country.”

Crocker dismissed the idea of a tripartite US-Iran-Iraq commission, pointing out that further meetings were not necessarily the solution to Iraq’s continuing crisis.

The US accuses Iran of destabilising Iraq by providing sophisticated weapons to non-government armed groups, while the Iranians say that the ongoing American occupation is provoking civil strife.

It appears there will be more meeting in the future between the countries which could help resolve the tension about nuclear production. At the moment – it doesn’t seem like this matter was discussed at the meeting. I don’t think this story made it to the Daily Telegraph as i only found stories that were leading up to the talks but not stories about the outcome.

it was interesting that the Ageused a different headline but also commented that the talks were positive. their headline read, US tells Iran to stop backing militants, the article then proceeds ( i nearly had to include the whole article because it paints quite a different picture to that of the SMH)

Washington’s top official in Iraq has told an Iranian delegation that Tehran should stop supporting militias in Iraq.

US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said the talks, the first high-profile discussions between the two foes in almost three decades, ended without setting another meeting date

“The talks proceeded positively,” he said. “What we need to see is Iranian action on the ground.”

“I laid out before the Iranians a number of our direct, specific concerns about their behaviour in Iraq, their support for militias that are fighting both the Iraqi security forces and coalition forces,” Mr Crocker said.

“The fact (is) that a lot of the explosives and ammunitions that are used by these groups are coming in from Iran … Such activities … need to cease and … we would be looking for results.”

Mr Crocker said the Iranian delegation, led by Iraq ambassador Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, did not respond directly to the charges, other than to express their support for the Iraqi Government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

As if to underscore the sole topic of the meeting — sectarian violence in Iraq — a car bomb exploded in the busy commercial area of Sinak, in central Baghdad, killing 19 people and wounding 46 others soon after the talks ended.

As if to underscore the sole topic of the meeting — sectarian violence in Iraq — a car bomb exploded in the busy commercial area of Sinak, in central Baghdad, killing 19 people and wounding 46 others soon after the talks ended

Washington has long accused Tehran of fomenting violence in Iraq by supporting Shiite militias. The US military has put on display what it says are Iranian-made rockets, mortars and roadside bombs seized in Iraq.

Iran denies the charge and has called on US forces to leave Iraq, saying their presence is fuelling sectarian violence between majority Shiites and Sunni Arabs, who were dominant under Saddam Hussein.The talks did not touch on Tehran’s continued stand-off with the West over its nuclear program.

Iran says its atomic work is for the peaceful generation of electricity but the US says it is being used to develop a nuclear bomb.

I get the feeling that the journalists from the Age have quite a different viewpoint from those at SMH. from the outset ie, the headlines, the article tended to focus more on the negative aspects of the talks and things that weren’t resolved, rather than talking about how the talks were peaceful and in the future more talks could be a step closer to peace between the countries. I’m not sure why this is the case, perhaps the Age wanted to take that other angle or reiterate to the public that things still arent ok, perhaps it was just to keep people realistic about terrorism in Aus?

I thought American Papers would take a great interest in the talks, and i first looked at the New York Times, the article was hidden and i had to find it in the search engine,The article was labelled ‘In Rare talks, US and Iran Discuss Iraq”

 BAGHDAD, May 28 — The United States and Iran held rare, face-to-face talks in Baghdad on Monday, adhering to an agenda that focused strictly on the war in Iraq and on ways the two bitter adversaries could help to improve conditions here.

The article mentions that nothing was resolved from the talks, although they ‘proceeded positively’

Both sides, he said, articulated a common desire to help stabilize Iraq.

“The Iranians as well as ourselves laid out the principles that guide our respective policies toward Iraq,” he said. “There was pretty good congruence right down the line: support for a secure, stable, democratic, federal Iraq, in control of its own security, at peace with its neighbors.”

 The meeting occurred against a backdrop of a worsening conflict in Iraq and deepening animosity between Iran and the United States — each accuses the other of contributing to Iraq’s instability

“We all are pretty much in the same place in terms of declaratory policy,” he said. “The problem lies, in our view, with the Iranians not bringing their behavior on the ground into line with their own policy.” The Iranian ambassador said he told Mr. Crocker that Iran was willing to train and equip the Iraqi security forces to create “a new military and security structure” and asserted that the American efforts to do the same were inadequate. He said Iran was also prepared to help rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, which he said had been “demolished by the American invaders.”

I think the New York Times did a pretty good job at being objective. The article notes that both sides are not taking responsibility for the upheaval in Iraq, but both are interested in resolving it.

I thought the story would be a leading story in the Washington Times because Washington had a lot to do with the story, however the story didn’t make the front page of the website. in fact i had trouble locating any story about the outcome of the talks. i did find many articles leading up to the talks, but none after. I found it strange that if they did cover this story, why the website has made the story so difficult to locate. i think they may not have updated the story as yet? this is the only reason i can think of as to why the story isn’t on the front page!

The story was front page on The Independent UK website. The article titled “Iraq is the only topic of conversation as the US and Iran finally meet” is pretty passive

 Whether the four hours of talks yesterday between the two countries’ ambassadors to Baghdad produced any concrete agreement was far from clear last night. But both Tehran and Washington said the discussions – the first direct, bilateral and publicly announced meeting between them in a generation – had been a worthwhile exercise.

However, the article did note the tension still present between the two countries after the talks,

But the underlying divide between them seems as wide as ever. Speaking to reporters afterwards, the US ambassador complained that Iran’s reasonable-sounding policy was contradicted by its behaviour. “What we need to see is action on the ground,” he declared, urging Tehran to stop arming, funding and training militant Shia groups, some of whom had attacked American troops.

In response, Iran says that the US should not be in Iraq at all.

overall, the article was informative and objective, will isn’t really surprising as the paper had no personal interest in the talks.

news values

impact and consequence - not so much a major value in this story because the talks did not have a breakthrough outcome, but perhaps in the future more consequences will arise from meetings if they take place.

conflict - the ever present conflict between the east and the west. This is clear when all the news organisations state that US and Iran conducted the meeting pleasantly, however after the talks they both pointed the finger at each other

timeliness -big news value, i think what i found is the Washington Times was not as fast as other news organisations to pick up the story. the story was breaking news as it was the first time in many many years that these two countries in particular have held a meeting

proximity – i think all the news organisations around the world have an interest in events such as this because terrorism affects every country, all over the world

currency -this conflict between the east and the west has been current for very long time now, so currency definitely comes into play.

There is alot of stories in the media at the moment about the meeting between Iran and the US which is taking place in Baghdad tomorrow. the two countries have had very limited contact since Washington broke ties after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The coverage has been world wide and the stories are about the two countries meeting to primarily discuss Iran’s involvement in Iraq but may slip to talks about Iran’s defiance to suspend nuclear production. the talks could also extend to other subjects such as recent kidnappings.

firstly, i should also include the recent accusations (in the last two days) against America, with Iran claiming the west has set up spy networks in their country. The Associated Press Newswire (27 May) has a good background story

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) – Iran said Saturday it has uncovered spy rings organized by the United States and its Western allies, claiming on state-run television that the espionage networks were made up of “infiltrating elements from the Iraqi occupiers.”

The Intelligence Ministry has “succeeded in identifying and striking blows at several spy networks comprised of infiltrating elements from the Iraqi occupiers in western, southwestern and central Iran,” said the statement, using shorthand for United States and its allies.

At the moment there is little known about these accusations, with claims that more information will be available in a few days…it is unclear how these claims will impact on the talks to be held.

Now about the meeting with Iran and US, It is interesting to note that the articles in the Observer (27 May) actually focus more on American politics, claiming:

The meeting, the second between US and Iranian officials in recent months, signals a subtle change in the Bush administration.

The talks – which officials on both sides insist will focus exclusively on the security situation in Iraq – are the most obvious sign of an increasingly bitter struggle for control of US policy over Iran between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Cheney has let it be known that he is deeply unhappy with President Bush’s swing towards a more diplomatically led approach, after months of increasingly bellicose noises.

The feud over policy on Iran has seen the Central Intelligence Agency’s director, Michael Hayden, Defence Secretary Robert Gates, Rice’s deputy, John Negroponte, and Under-Secretary Nicholas Burns line up against Cheney and hawks in the Pentagon and in the neo-conservative think-tanks who have been insisting that the US should be preparing for war against Tehran.

The article can be accessed at the following site, http://global.factiva.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au:2048/ha/default.aspx

The Oregonian,a paper in the US, said in an editorial on the 26 May, that the outcome on the talks between the two countries will depend on how Iran’s nuclear reactor program proceeds. This article was quite entertaining to read because it was so obviously bias,

One of the inconvenient truths of international politics became news again this week when the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran could have the capacity to build a nuclear weapon within three years.

 The IAEA’s Mohamed ElBaradei also offered the disturbing news that the Iranian government has limited the access of international nuclear inspectors to the extent that their ability to understand the unexplored aspects of Iran’s nuclear program is “deteriorating.”

Iran first denied it was doing any nuclear development. When that lie became impossible to sustain, Russia offered a plan under which other nations would process and supply the nuclear fuel for Iran’s peaceful uses. Iran rejected that, arguing it had a right to its own peaceful program. This standoff ultimately resulted in a loose set of sanctions against Iran enacted by the U.N. Security Council last year.

As things have progressed, or regressed, inspectors in Iran have discovered diagrams showing how to form uranium into warheads, unexplained contamination at a research facility linked to the Iranian military, information on high-explosive experiments with nuclear weapons applications, and a design for a missile re-entry vehicle.

How good is that! From the outset it was apparent that the article was not going to talk about the meeting with Iran and America -named Iran’s ambitions hurt peace prospects - it is clear that the editorial would defend American and attempt to justify why the US is concerned about Iran’s nuclear production.

Another United States paper, The Plain Dealer,(26 May) published an opinion piece – very opinionated i might add. the article conveys the idea that unless Iran is stopped, they will wipe out the world.

I ran’s calculated defiance of its nuclear obligations must not stand.

A new U.N. report makes clear that Tehran continues to thumb its nose at the international community by accelerating its nuclear weapons program, instead of freezing it as required. Even more worrisome, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency report, Iran is putting more barriers in the way of lawful U.N. nuclear inspectors by withholding required information and putting more sites off-limits.

The article then goes on to talk negatively about Iran and reiterating that sanctions must be imposed after negotiations between the two countries. a great sentence was in the final para of the story

With Iran now self-sufficient in nuclear weapons work, it’s only a matter of time before it has the technical capability to make a bomb.- great sentence to instill fear into the public. I know this is an opinion piece, but i think its a bit full on. Iran has done nothing as yet and it is somewhat unjustified to try to sway others to believe they will use the nuclear production for war. If Iran wasnt thinking about creating nuclear weapons, after all the “bullying” from the West, they are probably considering it now.  

speaking of bullying, The BBC Monitoring the Middle East  had a good article based on the president of Iran, saying that political activities of bullying powers would not prevent Iranian nuclear programme.

Bullying powers know the era of bullying has ended. Their psychological warfare and sanctions will inflict no damage on Iran’s nuclear path,” he said.

He added, “The Iranian nation has made its decision and will pass the way and defend its rights.

“Nuclear technology to produce industrial fuel belongs to all Iranian people.”

it will be interesting to see if he maintains this perception after the talks with the US in a couple of days from now. i will have to wait until the media coverage comes out…

 i looked at some Australian papers and got an objective view on the situation. The Sydney Morning Herald told they story how it is, that the two countries will meet and discuss Iraq, possibly the UN sanctions imposed on Iran and maybe kidnapping issues. it was interesting however that i didn’t find a specific article in SMH about the meeting to occur. this issue was weaved within the recent allegations about spy networks. – this seemed to be the case with other Australian news organisations.

i think its quite obvious who is more interested in this story – and the story gives people, such as American journalists an opportunity to voice their opinions (as you can see above.) As the story is still developing and the main event is yet to happen, there isn’t a great deal to report on, so i think news organisations are just setting up the stage for a flood of media articles when the event actually occurs. it will be interesting to see the opinion articles released after the talks.  

the news values evident in this story

impact/consequence- because the story hasn’t actually happened yet, it is suggesting impact and consequence in the next couple of days, I&C for America and/or Iran.

conflict- the always present conflict between the middle east and the west. and in this particular case between Iran and the US

timeliness - hmmm not so much, it isn’t really a breaking story, but like i said before it is setting the scene for a major news story which will appear in the next few days

proximity - a biggie – this is apparent in the opinions and editorials that i found with American papers. Also the Aus papers are quite distant from the story as their coverage was very brief. The UK paper i checked out was interesting as they focused on American politics, and not on the talks – perhaps because they don’t have the emotional attachment that America has because they are involved in the talks? I’m not completely sure the reason for that actually?

currency -   at the moment, this story is in line with the Iran nuclear fuel debate, however i think this story is the initiation to a whole new range of stories that will emerge from the talks and create their own currency.

I found an article in The Telegraph(London) which claims that Iran is growing more dangerous evey day while producing nuclear power. The article uses quotes from David Cameron, the Conservative Leader who strongly believes the country is producing nuclear weapons. The article carries a negative undertone and the use of quotes allows the newspaper to paint quite a negative picture of Iran.

“Every week, every month that goes by brings Iran closer to possessing a nuclear weapon,” said Mr Cameron. “We have to recognise that the next Government of this country could face continuing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan and the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran.” Mr Cameron declined to rule out supporting military action against Teheran’s nuclear facilities. But he stressed the drawbacks, saying that “Iran having a nuclear weapon would be calamity but military action could be calamitous”.

 ”Make no mistake, the threat is growing, the scale and urgency of our response needs to match it,” he said.

Iran is defying three United Nations resolutions by continuing to enrich uranium at its nuclear plant in Natanz. This highly sensitive process could be used to manufacture weapons-grade uranium. Once it has enough of this essential material, Iran could build a nuclear bomb.

But the measures suggested by Mr Cameron would take years to impose real costs on Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime plans to complete its nuclear facility in Natanz by the end of this month. If successful, Iran would then have 3,000 operational centrifuges, the machines used for enrichment. Under these conditions, a briefing released by Mr Cameron said: “Iran would need approximately six to 12 months to produce enough highly enriched uranium for its first nuclear weapon.”

I wondered whether any other news organisations had also picked up on Cameron’s comments and made them into a story? I found a article on the BBC (23 May) which features Cameron attacking the Blair government

The leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron, and the foreign affairs spokesman William Hague, have said that the UK should admit that sanctions imposed on Iran because of its nuclear programme have not been successful.

Cameron and Hague have accused the Blair government of not pushing Britain’s EU partners towards a firmer position on Iran, and of not pressuring the US to offer greater incentives to Iran.

They called for a change of policy on Iran as soon as possible

The Associated Press Newswires took the same stance as The Daily Telegraph, focusing on Cameron’s attack on Blair

Current sanctions are “too weak to bring about a change in behavior” and incentives to halt the program — such as the prospect of better relations with the West — have been damaged by a lack of commitment by the United States, Cameron said.

i looked at Australian papers to see what their perceptive on the matter was, i was hoping that they would have a more objective stance since they are not an close to the subjects as English papers are.  Sure enough The Sydney Morning Herald(23 May) provided reasons for Cameron’s attacks on the govt and didn’t just regurgitate his quotes resulting in a bias article. The article explains that a recent security investigation reveals that Iran is planning to attack some parts of Europe.

Iran is attempting to draw up plans to strike targets in Europe and has reconnoitered European nuclear power stations, a security analyst told a meeting at Britain’s parliament.

Claude Moniquet, president of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Centre said, “We have serious signals that something is under preparation in Europe…Iranian intelligence is working extremely hard to prepare its people and to prepare actions.”

I found it interesting about how different the SMH talked about Cameron, in the article it says

Opposition Conservative party leader David Cameron also urged Britain and the United States, in an earlier speech, to strengthen measures against Iran and called on Washington to speed up plans for talks with Iranian officials.

He ‘urged’?? UK papers hardly give the impression that Cameron was urging anything, but rather demanding something happen! The articles also didn’t say anything about Blair and Cameron having a war of words about the matter.

The news values present in these articles are

impact/ consequence- the articles raise the issue of further trouble in Iran due to nuclear energy being produced, i think the Daily Tele actually believes terrorism acts will occur from the nuclear energy in the way they wrote the article, it carried a tone that not only suggest terrorism but reinforces it with quotes. So impact and consequence in the future is relevant here

conflict - conflict has been caused between Blair and Cameron, and as always conflict between Iran and the west.  

timeliness- not so relevant here i don’t think because the main issue here is a political debate, which can be stretched over numerous weeks. however, the recent security investigation is a time issue and it was surprising that i didn’t find more articles on that report.

proximity - for the Daily Telegraph proximity is a dominant value as the article features British politicians. This is not so relevant for Aus newspapers like SMH, hence why there was less coverage on what Cameron has been saying and the drama unfolding with him and Blair

Prominence - major value as the debate includes Blair and Cameron, two British politicians

currency -the Iran debate has been occurring for months so currency is definitely a value.

I found a great article in the Iran Daily (May 18) which is about Iran getting support for their production of nuclear fuel -

Foreign Ministers of the Organization of Islamic Conference on Thursday adopted the Islamabad Declaration, backing Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and opposing any use of force against the Islamic Republic

“We call for the reduction of tension and resolution of differences concerning Iran’s nuclear issue through dialogue,“ the 31-point declaration said.
“We oppose the use of force which will further destabilize the region. We recognize Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and its readiness for the peaceful resolution of all issues.
“We reaffirm the inalienable right of the member-states to acquire and use atomic energy for peaceful purposes in a non-discriminatory manner and in accordance with the international legal obligations.“
The declaration underscores the need to evolve an energy strategy, in line with the interests of its member-states.

“Today, the Muslims have been exposed to the highest pressure, and unprecedented threats and multi-dimensional conspiracies,“  Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said

I found it great that other news organisations in Britian, the US and Aus in particular did not cover this story! I get the feeling that these countries (although they try) cannot possibly look at this story objectively. These countries are the “west” and because of this their stance on this issue will undoubtedly by skewed, hence they would not look at this story and think “great! wonderful for Iran, we’ll cover this story”

The news values here are

impact and consequence – getting the support from the Organisation is good news for Iran, I wonder if this will have any impact on the wests perception – whether they finally will consider that the program ‘comes in peace.’  

Timeliness – good news for Iran, so timeliness for Iran is vital. The fact that news organisations in other countries didnt cover this story makes it quite clear that they do not think it is a very significant story

proximity - no news organisation could get more closer to the story than Iran Daily!

Prominence -a big organisation (the Foreign Ministers of the Organization of Islamic Conference) was involved so the prominence of this organisation is relevant.

currency -  very relevant – this ongoing story has attracted publicity and controversary for months

It makes me wonder how much longer this story will continue to be in the news. If Iran continues to produce nuclear energy and not harm other nations, I assume the story will be phased out. Perhaps the west and their newspapers will keep producing stories and keep the issue alive in the media, because they are convinced that Iran will make a mistake sooner or later? We’ll just have to wait and see….

I’m finding it interesting that Iran isn’t in the headlines of the news at the moment. The nuclear fuel debate is still projecting stories from various news organisations, however these don’t appear to be ‘breaking news’ – news organisation are still covering the story, extensively too - due to the news value of currency – however i am finding that they are looking at the issue different angles.

For example, I found story in the New York Times (May 21) that was interesting.

The story is about Arab countries not allying themselves with Iran – especially since Iran has increased their power lately.

Arab countries should value Iran’s nuclear development because it could help them address their own energy needs, said Mohammed J.A. Larijani, a former deputy foreign minister and brother of Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator.

Mohammed J.A. Larijani, a former deputy foreign minister and brother of Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, said the West would turn a blind eye if Arab countries came looking for nuclear assistance.

This story came about after the World Economic Forum when Arab diplomats gave Larijani and other Iranian delegates a cold shoulder during the forum

Suspicions about Iran were also apparent as Iranian delegates stood by themselves during coffee breaks at the gathering of some 1,000 politicians and businessmen from Arab and Western nations, including the United States.

However, nuclear production in Iraq is still going ahead

”I confirm that our technical efforts are going ahead appropriately,” Reza Aqazadeh, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, said in comments to the official news agency, IRNA.

Aqazadeh said Iran’s goal remained ”improving nuclear technology” and installing 50,000 centrifuges at its underground plant in Natanz. A confidential IAEA document obtained by AP last month said Iran was using 1,300 centrifuges at Natan

However, I had trouble finding a story similar to this in Australian papers. I looked in the online publications of The Sydney Morning Herald, The Adelaide Advertiser and The Herald Sun and was unable to find a similar story.

I think there was the same article in the Chicago Tribune, but i couldn’t access it because the site i wasn’t registered, and then when i tried it wouldn’t let me! Anyway the LA Times didn’t cover this particular story either. Not surprisingly neither did the Independent UK. I couldn’t find anything in the Iran Daily either – i tried typing the World Economic Forum but there were no results.

It is disappointing that other papers didnt cover this because it was an interesting story, particulary because it seems silly that Arab countries wouldn’t want to be allies with a country that is becoming so powerful. The news values present in this story are

 impact/consequence  – the article raises these two values in two separate ways. Impact and consequence can refer to the issue if Arab countries decide to ally themselves i.e. what impact this will have on the west and will this pose a threat to these nations? and impact and consequence if the Arab countries do not – will this be potentially damaging in the future if Arab countries do need assistance?

conflict-referring to the basis of the article – conflict between Iran and Arab countries, conflict between Iran and the West

timeliness - like every story to come out of the Iran nuclear fuel debate – timeliness is everything – one could presume the New York Times has been quicker to grab this story – or the New York Times thought this story had more significance than other news organisations thought it did

Proximity - writing from the Wests point of view – obviously New York has people in Iran and surrounding countries so they have a interest in the happenings over there

currency -definitely – the nuclear fuel debate has been occurring for months now

I found this article in the LA Times (May 19) and only in the LA Times.

Six suspected militants thought to have smuggled roadside bombs from Iran were captured in northeast Baghdad.

The suspected militants rounded up Friday were thought to be smuggling armor-piercing bombs from Iran to northeast Baghdad. The mostly Shiite area, home to Sadr City, is a stronghold of radical cleric Muqtada Sadr’s Al Mahdi militia.

The main newsvalue present in this story is Timeliness as this is breaking news it appears other newspapers are yet to have gotten the story or do not find any significance in the story. Proximity is also a factor as America has an important interest in Iran as the war on terror. I suppose Currency  is also key because Iranian matters have been a ongoing concern to the rest of the world.

I found an article in the SMH about “next round of talks between Iran and the European Union on Tehran’s disputed nuclear programme” (SMH May 19) but i had trouble finding articles in other papers that related to this article.

Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, a Spaniard, last met in Turkey on April 25-26 to discuss the nuclear row and agreed to meet again but without fixing a date and venue.

“There is a high possibility that it will take place in Spain,” Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the ILNA news agency, suggesting the meeting would be some time between May 22 and May 31. The official IRNA news agency earlier this week said May 31 was the agreed date.

This actually isnt much of a story and it tended to reiterate what was already know about the Iran nuclear power debate

Iran is embroiled in a deepening standoff with major powers over its atomic ambitions, which the West fears are aimed at making nuclear weapons. Tehran says it only wants to produce electricity.

The United Nations has imposed two sets of sanctions on Iran since December over its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment – a process that can be used to make atomic warheads.

US officials have warned of a third, tougher resolution if Tehran does not halt such work, but Iranian leaders have repeatedly said they will not bow to such pressure.

The article has uses the news value of prominence and currency as the nuclear debate is an ongoing and important issue. Although Im still confused as to why other news organisations such as The New York Times, the Independent UK and the LA times havent placed any importance of the story – this is evident in absense of articles.

This story is about British Prime Minister Tony Blair announcing his retirement. initially i was looking at Iran’s reaction to the news, but i was unable to locate other articles that took that angle on the story…

The Sydney Morning Herald  and The Age (11.5.07)

The departure of British Prime Minister Tony Blair could have a “positive impact” if the country changes its foreign policy, Iran’s foreign minister says.

Britain under Blair has been a close ally of US President George W Bush in Iraq and also in efforts to isolate Iran over its nuclear program, which the West suspects is aimed at developing atom bombs

Bilateral relations between Tehran and London hit another low in March when Iranian forces seized 15 British naval personnel in the Gulf. They were released unharmed almost two weeks later.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Blair’s announcement on Thursday he would step down next month after a decade as prime minister would be a “break for the Labour Party and the hard situation” they are facing.

“If there will be a correction to some extent … in their foreign policy … then definitely it can have positive impact as a possible factor in the foreign policy in some fields such as Iran,” Mottaki said on state television late on Thursday.

I found it interesting that i wasnt able to locate any articles in the New York Times about Iran’s reaction to Blair’s retirement because this paper has a more objective standpoint. An article relating to Blair’s retirement was focused on the positive relationship between US Presidet George Bush and Mr. Blair

Shoulder to shoulder at the White House for the last time before Blair steps down on June 27, the two leaders heaped praise on each other and defended themselves against critics of a war that is increasingly unpopular in both countries.

“There are a lot of blowhards in the political process,” Bush told a news conference. “Tony Blair is actually someone who follows through on his convictions.”

Blair returned the compliment, describing Bush as “a strong leader at a time when the world needs strong leadership.”

I am also finding it difficult to track down articles in Britain’s newspapers like the UK Gardian and Independent UK that are directly about Iran’s reaction… Although i did find an interesting article on the in the latter (May 10)  which slammed Tony Blair. Instead of talking about the retiring Prime Ministers positive qualities, the journalist, Steve Richards, compared Blair to Harold Wilson -

Much of his party feels betrayed by his long record in power. Many Labour members have left. Others can barely utter his name, such is their anger. For months leading up to the announcement the media has screamed about sleaze in Downing Street. Meanwhile his most senior cabinet minister waits to take over as a new Conservative leader makes waves.

Both leaders fell into traps, partly for similar reasons. Wilson might have avoided the humiliation of an enforced devaluation, but he wanted to show the media and business that a Labour government could run the economy competently. He was too scared to act in any way that conveyed a lack of confidence in the strength of the currency. Blair’s thinking in relation to Iraq was multi-layered, but partly he wanted to prove, after the vote losing 1980s, that Labour could work closely with a republican US president. Wilson and Blair strode towards disaster seeking to purge Labour of its past.

This article is pretty lenghthy and doesnt show Blair in a positive light at all, it suprised me that it so overtly expressed hatred toward Blair and didnt show an ounce of objectivity, Richards labels Blair as an ”insecure imposter.”

The Scotsman which is printed in the UK took a similar approach to the story as the New York Times- talking about the strong alliance between Bush and Blair

GEORGE Bush and Tony Blair yesterday staged their final double act of defiance, telling the world they would go to war again in Iraq if it was called for.

Mr Bush also heaped praise on the outgoing Prime Minister. The US president accused the media of trying to “tap dance on [Mr Blair's] political grave” by constantly questioning the point of yesterday’s meeting due to the fact that Gordon Brown will take over as Prime Minister by the end of next month.

He repeatedly came to Mr Blair’s defence, criticising reporters. He said: “You don’t understand how effective Blair is. Will I miss working with Tony Blair? You bet, absolutely. Can I work with the next guy? Of course.”

Mr Bush described Mr Blair as a “man of courage”, adding: “Tony Blair is someone who follows through on his commitments.”

The Regeneration & Renewal, (may 18) originating in the UK was on Blair’s positive side

The once young and fresh, latterly furrowed, face of Tony Blair so encapsulates this Labour government that it is difficult to separate his personal achievements from those of his administration in general Certainly, the past decade has seen a scale of physical change in the UK’s major cities arguably unprecedented since the rebuilding programme that followed the Second World War. Yet it would be wrong to apportion the revival of Manchester, the riverside renaissance of Newcastle and Liverpool and the turn-around of London from depopulated city to growing world metropolis to Blair personally.

‘Under Blair, there has been a decade of urban revival,’ says Dermot Finch, director of think-tank the Centre for Cities and a former Treasury economist who once worked with the Prime Minister elect, Gordon Brown. ‘But the main reason for that is a stable and relatively strong economy. It would have been very difficult to turn around those cities if the economy hadn’t been benign. We might have seen some physical change, but we wouldn’t have seen the increases in employment and income. With peaks and troughs, we’d have had more garden festivals maybe – not ten years of virtually constant improvement.’

i found there was a great mix of stories to come out of Blair’s retirement, especially from the UK’s perspective.  As i stated before i was trying to find out Iran’s reaction to his retirement because my topic is about Terrorism, however i could only find these types of articles in Australian newspapers.

The Iran Daily – May 6th

ASR-E EQTESAD: Tony Blair celebrated his last year in office as premier. The UK premier is the only Labour Party boss who managed to remain in 10 Downing Street for 10 years. After 18 years in the opposition camp and shadow government, the ruling party headed by its new leader (Blair) came to the political scene in 1997 under the so-called ’New Labor Party’ to distinguish itself from the leftist ideology of old Labour. Although Blair may have managed to secure a stable slot for himself in British history, he will always be remembered for and associated with the Iraq war. Blair is leaving in disgrace for no other reason other than his blind support for George Bush’s illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. The drubbing his Labour Party has received at the hustling in recent years has more to do with his pathetic failures in occupied Iraq and for never having an exit strategy from the bloody conflict in which British troops are being killed on a regular basis.

i found there was a great mix of stories to come from Blair’s reitrement, especially from a UK perspective. this is perhaps because of the news value of Proximity. the Australian papers and New York paper are not as involved in this issue as the UK is, which is precisely why they have write from a more objective and distant position. i found Prominence also evident as the stories involve the British Prime Minister. Impact/consequence - the impact from Blair’s retirement not only on Britain but on Britains relations with Iran. timeliness - news organisations trying to get all angles of the story as it is unfolding. conflict – conflict was mainly present between the different UK publications, every newspaper had their own opinion of Blair and were overt in expressing it.