by Adam Johnson
The general mindlessness in choosing a stock photo is what makes them so pernicious. Editors reach for an image that captures the overall theme of the article while drawing the eye of distracted media consumers—typically as an afterthought, something that accents a piece rather than defines it. It’s not an easy task, but it’s one that, left unexamined, can become a form of propaganda independent of any written text.
One of the most overused and toxic stock photos–and one that highlights perfectly this genre of image-making—is the “Woman in Chador Walks by Anti-US Mural” image accompanying countless stories about US/Iran relations. In several variants, the photo shows one or two Iranian women clad in black chadors, faces usually barely visible, walking past a mural of the Statute of Liberty with a skull face. Here it is in the New York Times (9/13/15):
(Photo: Abedin Taherkenareh/European Pressphoto Agency)
In the Washington Post (11/4/14):
(Photo: Atta Kenareatta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images)
And the Chicago Tribune (10/14/13):
(Photo: Morteza Nikoubazl/Reuters)
In The Atlantic (11/5/15):
(Photo: Raheb Homavandi/Reuters)
And CNN (1/20/17):
(Photo: Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images)
And on and on. These photos have been used constantly for years, in dozens of articles. The point of the image is to lazily tie together US-bashing and perceived subjugation of women, reinforcing the image of Iran as a country defined by misogyny and seething hate for the West.
This isn’t, of course, to say that Iran does not have popular and common displays of anti-US rhetoric—or, for that matter, that such rhetoric doesn’t have much historical basis. Such murals do exist—the one pictured most frequently adorns the former US embassy in Tehran—but their existence is only 0.01 percent of a broader picture of Iran, and the fact that they’re used nonstop to define a country of 80 million tells us how much of the media’s Iran coverage is on ideological autopilot: They hate us—and here’s an image that conveys this, while pandering to orientalist stereotypes.
How about next time an article on Iran or its relationship with the US needs an image, we try any of these (royalty-free!) photos depicting Iranians as humans, and not cartoon anti-American boogiemen:
(Photo: Tasnim News Agency/Wikimedia)
(Photo: Tasnim News Agency/Wikimedia)
(Photo: Gilbert Sopakuwa/Flickr)
(Photo: Ninara/Flickr)
(Photo: Babak Fakhamzadeh/Flickr)
Totally wild idea, but maybe give it a try. How we visualize the news is just as important as the written content. By reflexively relying on the most sinister and bias-reinforcing images to depict Iran, we help perpetuate the idea—even if unconsciously—that Iran is an anti-American hellscape.
.jpg){kind=link}
In oligarchy, war is a profit center.
“War is a racket.” General Smedley Butler, USMC
Excellent observation. Unfortunately, I don’t think your suggestion will be accepted. In the visual vocabulary of the mainstream media photos of happy smiling people (whatever their ethnicity) are reserved for use in advertising consumer products that have no potential to bring happiness.
Curiously, I am familiar with the mural in question from photos used in alternative media, not through the sources cited above. These photos lack the ‘woman in chador’ trope, as in this example: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/19/europe-must-stop-trump-from-starting-another-war-in-the-middle-east/
Astute contribution to this conversation. Consumerism is sacrosanct to MSM.
I think Adam Johnson has just made himself unpopular with the Western news photographer corps in Tehran. It’s a lot easier to stand opposite that *one mural* and take pictures of chadors (the people wearing them are clearly of no interest other than as chador delivery devices) than to go out and do something original.
Is Adam ever going to stop using that Jack Black photo? He looks nothing like that.
Edward Said had this same complaint about stock footage of “Middle Eastern” people “rioting” against America after Sept 11. This is not the stuff of journalism; it’s knee-jerk nationalism.
So.
On the one hand Said’s observations condemn the US press as propagandist, particularly against political irritants to US imperialism. On the other hand, this is a country where I can know about Edward Said and can easily access his words and ideas.
At least right now.
So Iran is not a misogynistic theocratic pseudo-democratic state? If you believe that I have a great deal for you on a bridge to Brooklyn.
So Iran IS “a misogynistic theocratic pseudo-democratic state?” If you believe that, it’s no wonder you have that bridge to sell.
Lol. Yes, the only question I suppose is who sold Stan the bridge?
Hmmm who sold Stan the bridge??? Oh, I bet it was found to be ‘ Bridge Too Far, : and was one of The Trumpsters imagined “owned” items. : )
It’s the long game.
There is no benefit for the profiteer class in sanctions. This dehumanizing process will make the eventual mass slaughter of innocents palatable to the patriotic American standing for the National Anthem preceding the spectacle where “heroes” brain damage one another.
It’s what Exceptionalism looks like.
Excellent point. I wish FAIR would allow us to like/upvote comments.
It’s easy to dismiss this article as a minor observation but there are two things I expect from our press
– scrutinizing our power centers for abuse and for concentration of power
– explaining the legitimate concerns of our opponents as well as possible to avoid escalation of conflicts
I have no objection to the press doing other things as well, but I have a strong feeling the two tasks I have for them are not being done at all. And the illustrations to the articles demonstrate that the opposite is being done.
Thank you for this great article. It was time that finally someone points this fact out. News are helping mislead the public on Iran in a very irresponsible way, playing into the hands of people who want war with Iran for their own reasons. I am speaking about these guys ( http://lobelog.com/are-billionaire-donors-driving-trumps-iran-policy/ )
Here you can find another set of photos that could be especially interesting for americans: https://theotheriran.com/category/usa/
Thank you, and while this does seem a flagrant re-hash of Iran in 1981, such portrayals in the media are not limited to that country, as Mona Eltawahy pointed out a number of years ago now:
“As a Muslim woman, I’m all too familiar with the media shorthand for “Muslim” and “woman” equaling Covered in Black Muslim Woman. She’s seen, never heard. Visible only in her invisibility under that black burka, niqab, chador, etc. Her male equivalent is Angry Bearded Muslim Man. Whenever the Muslim world is supposed to be upset or offended, invariably that story is illustrated by images of Angry Bearded Muslim man marching, shouting, fists raised in the air in righteous anger and burning something: an American flag, an Israeli flag, preferably both.
In those images you have conveyed all you want to say about Muslims: the men are angry, dangerous and want to hurt us; the women are just covered in black.”
https://jezebel.com/5747762/the-woman-whos-explaining-egypt-to-the-west
Love this post. I went to Iran recently, and wherever I went they seem to be friendly to westerners (the numbers have increased since the lifting of sanctions). They like our music, movies, and the way of life, especially the youth. They despise American policy towards Iran, and think America has not been fair to them.
In general, they are loving and warm people. Images of hatred for America are displayed by hardliners. The youth don’t like the hardliners, and have been instrumental in pushing the government’s agenda towards open relations with the west.
Why don’t they use images of regular old Iranians that are just living their life, irrespective of the relationship between Iran and the US? Because the vast majority of headlines are about US-Iranian relations, and none of those images would signify or depict that in any way.
I understand the problems with a single image repeatedly representing something as complex as Iranian-American relations, but I also would object to using everyday/normal people in Iran to represent the state, just as I would object to having a picture of myself eating lunch used to represent Trump’s relationship with North Korea. I also disagree with the unqualified assertion that the chador is supposed to represent the subjugation of women. This is a *possible* reading, but I think it’s far from certain that it is a necessary reading, or reason for its use. Certainly it is used to symbolize Islam, and Iran after all is an officially Islamic republic, but I think more evidence needs to be presented to go a step further than this. I’m not precluding this as a possibility, just calling for more careful argumentation, particularly given that this is an article essentially calling out sloppy argumentation in other journalism.
Hejab is placed in forefront by Iranians themselves who claim Hejab is a women’s right and it does not equate extremism.
Some hint here that it is simply convenient to (re)use the same motif again and again and consider it laziness on part of the journalists’ laziness. I see is as a deliberate act on part of these carrier journalist to appease their patrons.
How else can you lay the groundwork for an invasion and destruction of a country if its people are seen as people of flesh and blood? Its cities, vast and beautiful, its children with dreams similar to those of ours’.
Often times when CNN reports from Tehran, the footage is a scene from outside a mosque with a bunch of shoes at the doors. Tehran is reduced to a mosque. There are no high rises, no parks, no people busy with their daily choirs that can be uprooted by the smart bombs.
In the neighboring Iraq, schools, universities, hospitals, water purification centers, and power generators were labeled as “command and control centers” and then bombed to ruins. You cannot do such atrocities if the people are not unpeopled first.
I like your idea of scrutiny of the media and I would leave a comment but your interface is not not competitive with Medium.