I wasn't intending for this topic to take three parts to get to, but hopefully you guys are seeing what I see. This will be the final part of dealing with the Iran deal, and we will be taking a look at the last article. The last article comes from CNN. CNN, for those you aren't aware, is also said to lean to the left. I have tackled some of their articles before and pointed out that sometimes they do. Here is the link to the third and final article. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/world/meast/iran-nuclear-deal/index.html?hpt=po_c1
'3-decade gridlock broken: The nuclear deal with Iran in Geneva'. Now this seems like a proper headline. It does the job of letting us know that it is a big deal by saying its been an issue for thirty years. It tells us there is a deal. Thats it, and all it should do. Its not exactly an attention grabbing headline, but that isn't what I want. This isn't TMZ.
"The diplomatic gridlock between Iran and the West seemed immovable for decades. But on Sunday, diplomats made history when Iran and six world powers came together on an agreement over Iran's nuclear program. The deal dials back Iran's ability to work toward a nuclear weapon and at the same time loosens the choke hold of international sanctions on Iran's economy."
The opening couple paragraphs really let us know why this is important and does it without jumping to the 'skepticism' that our Congress has over it. So far, I'm digging it. "Iran has stumbled from one economic crisis to the next under the sanctions, and unemployment currently runs over 24%." Yes! I knew I saw that statistic somewhere. If you are confused, refer back to Part II where I talk about how the Iranian people are suffering because of the sanctions. It does refer to the criticism that the deal has received, but in a much better way I feel.
"Obama's Republican opponents in Washington scorned the deal, and key ally Israel frowned upon it. Both say it will have the opposite effect, advancing Iran's alleged quest for a bomb. "This agreement shows other rogue states that wish to go nuclear that you can obfuscate, cheat, and lie for a decade, and eventually the United States will tire and drop key demands," said freshman Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida."
While they use a quote, I don't feel like its the best quote they could have used to present their argument in a good light. It seems kind of overly dramatic (surprise).
Overall, CNN's article is what I was looking for when I wanted to learn about what the deal was. It presented the information in less bias than both MSNBC and Fox. They did a great job explaining the deal and the history and what it means. It lets us know who the key players were (John Kerry, Rouhani). Now that you all have seen all three articles about the same subject, which one did you feel appealed to what you look for more?
Great three part series. I too have been reading multiple stories on the subject and it is amazing how much imagery and useless information is put in the stores. I agree with you CNN has the best (of the bad) coverage of the deal. I have yet to find a story that deals with this in a straight forward manner with no fluff from the left or the right. All I want to hear is what the deal is, what Iran gets, what the International community gets in terms of reassurance of their nuclear program and how this will stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I think the reason that information is not out there in abundance is because they simply do not know. I makes me wonder if Israel is correct and that this is all a big mistake.
ReplyDelete