BBC 10 O'clock news: Iran the naughty school child

Just a short response to the risible BBC 10 O'clock news from Thursday night [12th January 2006]. Iran tops the bill. "Fears grow as talks with Iran collapse" In reporting this story the BBC reporters and anchor [Huw Edwards] e use of language was reprehensible, though tragically, not surprising. Iran is to be "reported to the UN council" like the naughty school child it is. This infantilization of an entire nation continues with pictures of Jack Straw and other European foreign ministers emerging from their "high level meeting", solemn expressions, heads shaking, 'we've done our best' looks on their faces to face the waiting media. Apparently it is "with great regret" that Iran is refusing to "fall into line" - a line the permanent members of the UN Security Council regularly breach with impunity. So the scolded child must be reported to the head master. Naughty Iran!

All the language used by the "high level ministers" and the people doing the reporting signifies Iran as a deviant threat to the social order. "Ministers worry that their development of nuclear technology will result in an increased threat of weapons of nuclear capability" So the ministers are "worried" that this deviant other poses a "threat". Huw Edwards then crosses live to Caroline Hawley outside the Foreign Office who exclaims "the diplomatic efforts having failed, and Iran digging its heels in, it appears now that the pressure will be stepped up a level ...in a bid to halt the development of weapons of mass destruction..." Western ministers are involved in "diplomatic efforts", Iran "digs its heels in" [perhaps like a child stamping its feet, refusing to budge] it's pretty transparent that this [no] language is not neutral, "we" are represented as the conciliatory, diplomatic, reasonable ones, making strenuous efforts. Whilst Iran is the intransigent child, in need of admonishment, reporting to the UN for "failure to fall into line". At the same time as this childlike representation, Iran is also considered a "threat". The opening lines of the broadcast mentioned "fears grow". The term weapons of mass destruction is only applied to the deviant [be it Iran, Iraq or North Korea]. Here in the west they're called a "nuclear deterrent"...that which deters the "threat" from the rule breaking, perhaps malevolent, untrustworthy, intransigent child-like 'Other', with their weapon of "mass destruction". Notably, the “refusal to fall in to line” by Iran is a refusal, so ‘they’ are the agents of disruption, but this is then referred to as a “new threat” to develop weapons of mass destruction – with the requisite pictures of the messianic Mullahs. Just in case we're in any doubt what that threat might look like, the broadcast then clumsily inserts a clip of a mushroom cloud, followed by a clip of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ranting at a crowd in Tehran. To sustain the dichotomy further, the “regret” expressed by the west signifies sadness but this results in a “new stage” in the diplomatic efforts. We don’t threaten, just move on to a “new stage” – this new stage is accompanied by shots of troubled looking European ministers and pictures of Whitehall

The narrative of this news broadcast also requires some scrutiny. The next story in Thursday's 10 O'clock bulletin is of the stampede in Mecca This is significant in the continuing circuitry of representation. "Cor, what they been up to now?" Its position in the bulletin is telling and symbolic of an exercise in encoding the Middle East as mysterious and *almost* beyond comprehension. The only thing lacking is Huw Edwards introducing the sequence with a wry smile to camera in the mode of "Tarrant on TV ["look at those crazy Japanese"]...Huw: "look at those 'mad Muslims'" Again, I realise this stuff happened, needs to be reported and given due prominence, but their position in the narrative, selection of images and choice of language is constructed around othering, infantilizing, patronising and dehumanizing.