Obama speaks with Iranian President

The New York Times and Wall Street Journal both gave front page coverage to Obama's 15 minute phone call with Mr. Rouhani today. While they give similar information, there are some interesting differences between the two articles.

The Wall Street Journal's "Obama Speaks with Iranian President" begin by mentioning "a week of thaws" between Iran and the US, though doesn't examine what they were, exactly (assuming that the reader has been keeping up to date on the news to this point). WSJ also does something surprising: they quote the Iranian president...from Twitter. The President of Iran tweeted The President of the USA. Talk about technology taking communication between countries to a new level.

This also prompts a question that one of my professors asked recently: when, if ever, is it appropriate to use a tweet as a direct quote in the news? My argument is this: Twitter is a public platform where anyone can see the information you are putting out. And it almost seems obvious that the statement between presidents was meant to be seen and meant to be reported on. It’s a show of good will toward each other, much like the 15 minute phone call.

Both articles briefly discuss the missed opportunity for the presidents to meet in person for a friendly handshake, but the NYT is the only one to quote the Iranian president saying that the meeting was premature, and the WSJ says that diplomats from each country met just the day before. Both articles cover Mr. Obama’s future meeting with Israel as well, and that Iran is determined to have peaceful negotiations over nuclear energy.

These articles almost complement each other, one gives more specific information over the meeting of the diplomats, one gives more specific quotes between the presidents. This is a good example of why we should try to read from more than one news outlet—not just because it can help diminish the chances of reading narrow perspectives, but because not every article on the Wall Street Journal or The New York Times will be able to cover every piece of information in a situation like this one.

What I found most helpful was the level of importance that the New York Times gave to this news article. I really didn’t have a grasp on how significant the phone call was until reading the NYT article. The last few paragraphs return to the last time an Iranian president met with a US president  (The Carter administration at Christmas). They remind the readers (or inform those who didn’t know, like myself) that the reason for lack of communication between the countries developed after President Pahlavi was ousted and 52 Americans were held hostage at the embassy in Tehran for 444 days.

Instead of closing with a reminder to the past relationship, the WSJ input another piece of information: Obama’s inquiry over three missing US citizens that may be jailed in Iran or are missing. With the Iranian government claiming innocence in the situation, it’s a curious shaky start to a new relationship, especially after the reason for the deterioration of communication the last time.