Are you explaining why the United States and Israel pay more attention to Iran or are you explaining why the media does? It looks to me like the former, but I honestly can't say for sure. I don't really know what you're trying to say in this post.
Why couldn't it be both, the US and Israel pay a lot more time meddling in the internal workings of Iran than they do in other countries or that they would be comfortable if Iran was involved in their Nations using any/all of the same techniques that have already been used inside Iran as promoted by proxies for the US and Israel.
The Media is a tag along for the Gov inside the US, international news might actually be more truthful than some would like it to be. Not meaning Iran, there wasn't any attempt to hide the vid. If the opposition have rallies that have death chants as the theme don't expect them to last very long and the ones who have their names on the permits will be arrested and charged with treason and hanged if found guilty.
The United States and Iran are mutually hostile to each other. As are Israel and Iran. The media pays attention to Iran because this hostility is important to international affairs. When the leaders of these countries comment on each other, that's news. Iran developing nuclear weapons would totally change the dynamic. When the international community attempts to manage this, it's news. In 2009, Iran experienced large scale protests over a disputed election that turned to violence. That's news.
The US is openly hostile to Iran for ending their sponsored dictator, Iran has no desire to expand it's borders, it wants to develop what it has while keeping most of the money for themselves. They want power generators so they don't have to use their natural resources for that same purpose. Iran is a defensive Nation, you don't use nukes as a defensive weapon unless it is a scorched earth policy. So would finding out the minute details of who the protesters were and if they were the same ones doing the damage, or were they 'police' setting the protesters up to look like they are lawless, just like has already happened in Canada so it could certainly happen anywhere.
Libya is in the news when it does stuff that's important news. The Lockerbie bomber getting released was news. Libya giving up its WMD programs was news.
True but how many stories are baseless or repetetive to an almost endless degree. Iran or any nation other than the US and Israel is never a 'daily threat' to anybody so why are there almost daily headlines that promote that picture.
Hardly anything really happens in Bahrain. It's not that important a country. Nor is Yemen, though recently Yemen has been in the news a lot for being a breeding ground for terrorism. Terrorism is news.
Never know which event in which Nation will be the one the straw that broke the camel's back.
Obviously there is bias in the media. Part of that bias is choosing more sensationalist news and news that effects or interests the world or the country the media organization is in. You aren't going to see "BREAKING NEWS: Saudi Arabia is a theocracy." Sometimes you see these in depth reports in news magazines or special weekend editions, but if you want to count how many stories a news organization runs on a specific country or event, obviously the count will be biased towards news events that are changing day to day and therefore require more stories. For two weeks straight the only thing you heard on the news was Egypt. I heard nothing about Uzbekistan. Why do you think that is?
How about the out-right lies that are repeated endlessly even after they have been shown to be lies, deliberate lies. If that is how the public is sold the need for that war/story then perhaps war/story is not even the best solution, let alone the only one.
Because nothing of importance happened there during that time.
The most obvious answer that you all should have immediately given is that the media pays more attention to Iran because more newsworthy things happen in Iran.
It is a PR program meant to scare the general public into believing things that are simply not true. Why believe the media when they have openly admitted they are under no obligation to publish the truth.
Yep, it is so far-out that the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa risked a diplomatic incident in a futile attempt to prevent it being shown.
Which means it is probably dead-on.
No that could mean it is a PR piece, which it is. Have you watched the whole thing? Some of it is less believable that the Iraq WMD bull.
If Martial Law was declared in Canada our troops would act exactly the same way as far as tear gas, I would hope they would wait a few days before live ammo is the rule of the day. Start chanting death threats and the protest would end ahead of schedule I'm quite sure/
