The things the west excluded... Iranian election '09

Al-Ahram a weekly online publication intently followed the Iranian election this past fall. The article is very direct in stating the aspects surrounding the election that western sources did not include in their coverage. The article explictedly lists ten key points that western audiences may still be unaware of. The author specifically states the following facts were excluded:
1. Ahmadinejad had been mayor of Tehran in 2003, depsite claims his competor was more liked in this crucial city.
2. Ahmadinejad had been ahead by a substantial lead for weeks prior to the election, thus his victory was forseeable.
3. Western media only followed his competiors and failed to report that Ahmadinejad's rallies had the highest audience attendence of all the canidates.
4. Western media did not report the complexity of the council that monitors fraud within any given election.
5. Nor did it report is effectiveness.
6. Western media also did not take into consideration that a new election may discourage minorities group who were wary of voting in the first place from returning to the polls.
7. Islam does not tolerate fraud and can be punishable by death
8. Western media did not acknowledge Ahmadinejad acknowledgement of jewish suffering in the past but rather reported he did not reconginize the holocaust. nor did they make his official transcript available.
9. Ahmadinejad's opponents were linked to wester allies in monetary ways but it was not well publicized.
10. Lastly, the author notes that Americans do not support reporting the truth.

The author refers to the 2000 election and a reporter by the name of David Barstow. This NY Times reporter uncovered a connection between officials in the pentagon who helped pust the Iraq war and companies who directly, monetarily, benefited from an upcomming war. Yet, his accomplishment was swept under the rug and he was not rewarded for his work.


Thus, after reading this article I am inclined to agree that the western coverage of this election may have been one sided. The over all outlook on the election was designed with a bias. I still am unsure whether I think the actual election was the result of corruption/or fraud. However I am sure that the coverage of the election masked the larger picture of what really took place.
9.