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.