When you know that someone is an opportunist, and that
he'll latch onto the events of the day when possible to score points for
whatever causes he happens to champion, how can you tell what his true
motivation has been for acting as he did?
To help us answer that question, we are lucky to have
two articles written by two writers on the same subject, and printed in the
same publication on the same day. The articles are different in their approaches,
as day is different from night. This makes it easy to figure out what has
motivated each writer, thus help us establish the validity of the causes they
might have adopted passionately.
One of the articles came under the title: “Iran's
Incompetent Response to Coronavirus Threatens the Middle East and the World,”
Written by Seth Frantzman, and published on February 26, 2020 in National
Review Online. The other article came under the title: “Beijing's Handling of
Coronavirus Has undermined Chinese Public's Trust in State Media,” written by
Zachary Evans, and published also on February 26, 2020, also in National Review
Online.
Reading the Seth Frantzman article, you can't help but
notice that it is loaded with editorial commentary. In fact, out of the 700
words that make up the article, 600 are dedicated to the body of opinions that
Frantzman has of Iran's leaders. The remaining 100 words serve to narrate the
events that unfolded around the outbreak of the coronavirus. What follows is
the narration, stripped of the commentary:
“Iran has responded to coronavirus in
characteristically counterproductive fashion. It has covered up an outbreak of
coronavirus that threatens the Middle East. Iran’s regime kept the extent of
the spread of the virus under wraps, keeping it off the homepages of major
local media. It's deputy health minister downplayed fears, claiming that rumors
of 50 deaths were false. It's People returning from Iran have spread the virus
across the Gulf where dozens are now under observation. Coronavirus has spooked
markets, and Iran is adding to the disaster”.
But Seth Frantzman was not satisfied
telling a story about Iran without smothering it with a ton of negative
opinions representing the talking points that make up the Jewish “hate-Iran
propaganda.” The following are passages pertaining to that propaganda. They do
not represent the full gamut of what's in Frantzman's article, but they are a
taste of what’s there:
“The Iranian government has covered up an
outbreak of coronavirus that threatens the Middle East. The regime, which has
threatened the region with ballistic missiles, drones, naval mines and
militias, has become a health threat as well. The virus has traveled from China
to Iran along the route that the Revolutionary Guard Corps uses, illustrating
the regime's disregard for its citizens and neighbors. Iran's failure to
confront the health crisis is due to the regime's arrogance, conspiracy-minded
behavior, and siege mentality. China's coronavirus has spooked markets, and Iran
is adding to the disaster. The Iranian regime is using its people as a human
shield. It has survived using brutality, killing protesters, shooting down an
airliner, and blaming others for its problems while it seeks to attack Israel,
Saudi Arabia, and the US. Iran is a threat to the world. Its airlines have
transported arms and operatives throughout the region. A similar route enabled
the virus to spread. The regime's toxic blend of religion, militancy, and
authoritarianism have come together at the worst time in a fragile region”.
These passages say that Seth Frantzman has
passionately adopted the Jewish and Israeli causes concerning their attitude
toward Iran. But there is not enough here to help us devise a method by which
to identify the motivation of someone like him. For this to happen, we need to
compare his article against someone else's. Well, we have that of Zachary
Evans, and the following is a condensed version of what he is saying about the
subject:
“China's government is facing criticism
from its own citizens over its handling of the outbreak of the coronavirus.
Beijing has launched a campaign in the struggle to contain the virus, meant to
unify the country's citizens. However, the government's efforts have faced
scorn on Chinese social media. A blog spot by a lawyer excoriated the
government over the virus. He wrote that by magnifying one individual's
happiness while hiding the suffering of most people, it's hard to say such
coverage was truthful. There is widespread anger over the government's
condemnation of doctors who tried to warn about the outbreak. China has changed
its diagnostic criteria multiple times, leading to confusion over the number of
cases in the country”.
We can see that the difference between the
two articles sums up as follows:
Seth Frantzman turned the tragedy of the
coronavirus into an international issue and used it as a weapon to scare the
people of the region; of America and the rest of the world about the Iranian
regime. His aim is clearly to stir fear and loathing about that country in the
hearts of people.
Zachary Evans, on the other hand, saw the
tragedy of the coronavirus as primarily a local Chinese issue. Yes, he is aware
that it has international ramifications, but his criticism of the Chinese
government was based on the criticism leveled by the Chinese people themselves.