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