Western media, public diplomacy, and foreign policy

TEHRAN, July 10 (MNA) – Mass media and governing elites in the West more generally and the United States in particular tend to reconcile their differences when it comes to matters relating to national security and the national interests of their countries. This unwritten but tacit consensus has been forged around the assumption of having freedom to both criticize and praise the government. But at the same time, the divide between mass media and policymakers becomes deeper if foreign policy decisions directly affect the public’s lifestyles and welfare needs. Both the public and local media tend to become detached from foreign policy issues unless the public is dramatically and saliently affected by those issues. But in times of declining or deteriorating economic conditions, the media and the public sharpen their focus on domestic politics, and hence the old adage that all politics is local. The existing political culture of the media having access to policymaking processes and the continuity of communication between these groups renders a broader consensus on national security or national interests possible -- if not without controversy at all times. The principle of accountability and responsiveness to media has created an atmosphere of trust and mutual dependency between the two. Media thrives and builds its trustworthiness by compiling and organizing information in the most accurate way possible and policymakers feel obligated to make themselves and their information available to the reporters in an attempt to be transparent or conversely justify the lack thereof. This symbiosis and mutual dependency creates a socialization process in which the most dominant codes of conduct and popular norms are constantly constructed and reconstructed around the notions of trust, accountability, and respect. In many Middle Eastern and North African countries, such a mutual trust and dependency is conspicuously lacking. If nothing else, media-policymakers interactions typically unfold in an environment of mutual suspicion and intimidation. Governing elites are fearful of media pundits and media experts feel left out of the information loop. Thus the mass media tends to rely on foreign sources as a way of gauging the legitimacy and credibility of information. Too often these relations are transpiring in a non-democratic and treacherous context. In Iran, the ruling elites and mass media need to find a way to build a relationship based on mutual respect and dependency. Free media is not a sign of a weakness; it is a sign of strength. In the case of Iran’s nuclear energy program, it is sanctions aimed at Iran’s nuclear program that have ratcheted up pressure on Iran’s oil industry and thus the larger economy. Naturally, the public tends to associate public policy with deteriorating economic problems and rampant inflation. The longstanding culture of mistrust between media and ruling elites serves as a poor conduit for the media to transmit accurate information to the public. This lack of trust and consensus, along with a climate of intimidation and fear, renders the media less beholden to the cardinal principle of journalism: “speaking truth to power.” The result is that the public is left out in the cold and rudderless, policymakers appear utterly unpersuasive to the public, and media feels betrayed and bereft of substance. The remedy lies in creating a democratic working relationship between media and public officials. True, democracy has an exorbitant cost, but its absence is even costlier and more problematic. Mahmood Monshipouri teaches international relations at San Francisco State University. He is the author of Terrorism, Security, and Human Rights: Harnessing the Rule of Law, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2012. ( By Mahmood Monshipouri)