We are not NYT bashers. Really we’re not. But only an ostrich can ignore what’s going down there lately when it comes to the Iranian issue.
Our previous post noted that last week the NYT editorial pages hosted two pieces taking the “Give Rouhani a Chance” position, with no opposing stance. Naively, we thought that would be the end of this one-sidedness. How wrong we were.
Exhibit A: Front-page story by Thomas Erdbrink joining the optimists’ bandwagon. Like other journalists before him, Erdbrink presents the October 2003 “Tehran Agreement” to back his case. He also quotes a then-relevant French diplomat (we’ll revisit this) for support.
To give credit where credit’s due, he at least brings this quote:
“Our opponents are wrong to expect compromises from Rouhani; the sanctions and other pressures will not make us change our stances,” said one of his former closest associates during an interview in Tehran.
Exhibit B: This op-ed along similar lines by another once-relevant French diplomat (we already spotted him in his native tongue). At the article’s core, the author seeks to attribute Iran’s momentary, tactical suspension of its military nuclear program to Rouhani.
Good point… Rouhani himself makes this clear in his famous 2004 Majlis address.
(What’s with the NYT’s insistence on quoting former French diplomats? Maybe it should instead try a still-active one in the know.)
Frankly, this time the NYT has truly disappointed us.