1Juliana LorussoProf. Michael HolmDec 8 2014Media Coverage of Jimmy Carter and the Iranian Hostage CrisisComment by Marissa Lorusso: Broad, vague sentences like this arent good openers. You want your reader to know youre talking about Carter/Iran right away. America as a nation has turned to media as a source of information for centuries. American media often heavily scrutinizes the opinions and decisions of the current American president, and thus, media focus on a president can have a very powerful effect on public opinion. Because of an event that took place during his presidency, the media focus on President Jimmy Carter was especially prevalent during Carters presidency from 1977 to 1981. This event the Iranian Hostage Crisis drew constant media coverage, which even resulted in news programs being focused solely on this topic. Media coverage comes hand in hand with constant criticism of all subjects involved. Media has the effect of shaping personal and public opinions and the more coverage a topic receives, the more of a chance there is for the public to form opinions in it. The medias focus on President Carters actions, or lack thereof, in regards to the crisis left the public questioning the integrity of their president. There was media criticism on this topic of the United States and Iran starting from the coverage of the Iranian Revolution, to the Shah coming into power, to President Carter allowing the Shah to come to the United States. This constant coverage also scrutinized the actions that the President took when the hostages were first taken in 1979 and the attempted rescue mission. This heavy focus on Jimmy Carter was continued through when the hostages were released, even though he was no longer the president at this time. This extensive media coverage of the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979 affected the public opinion of President Carter greatly and played a large role in his subsequent loss of the presidency to Ronald Reagan.In order to understand the role of media attention on the crisis during Carters presidency, it is imperative to first understand the conflict between America and Iran before the hostages were taken in 1979. These countries experienced much tension leading up to the students storming the American embassy in Iran. Iran had attracted interested from the Western world ever since oil was discovered there in 1908.[footnoteRef:-1] Both American and British corporations had much control over Irans oil reserves, and the corporations did not plan on handing over this control. However, in 1951, Irans newly elected Prime Minister, Muhammad Mossadegh, planned to concentrate the countrys oil industry more nationally. This led American CIA and British intelligence services to create a plan to replace Mossadegh with someone more likely to support their oil concentrations.[footnoteRef:0] However, it was not until 2011 that documents were released that proved the CIAs involvement with the coup[footnoteRef:1]. The pictures of the plans to take Mossadegh out of power show full maps and explanations of how the operation would be executed. Phase I of this plan was called The Great Demonstration and included the bands of ruffians who were paid to demonstrate by coup organizers. They would move through the country and each different coup had different targets. By the fourth phase, the anti- Mossadegh supporters moved towards his house, forcing him to escape; the United States had successfully completed their mission.[footnoteRef:2] As stated by a George Washington University analyst, the diagrams reinforce the conclusion that the United States, and the CIA in particular, devoted extensive resources and high-level policy attention toward bringing about Mossadeghs overthrow, and smoothing over the aftermath[footnoteRef:3]. The media did not, however, negatively portray the man in charge at this time, President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In one of many newspaper articles about this coup, the New York Times started, there is good news indeed in the announcement of an agreement between Iran and a consortium of foreign oil companies[footnoteRef:4] seemingly supporting Eisenhowers actions. This support of the President could have been because Americans generally liked him or based off the simple fact that they supported what he was attempting to do because it would mean ultimately good things for their country. The actions of the CIA were kept a secret from the people of America until the photographical evidence was released in 2011. Regardless of the unknown American military action, the people of America did want to see Mossadegh taken out of power because this would positively influence the economy through the regained control of part of the oil industry. Comment by Marissa Lorusso: The fact that the students stormed the embassy comes out of nowhere you arent even telling me which students stormed which embassy Comment by Marissa Lorusso: PERIODS INSIDE FOOTNOTESComment by Marissa Lorusso: you could maybe put this in a footnote?Comment by Marissa Lorusso: what plans?Comment by Marissa Lorusso: Did US citizens even know that we overthrew the Iranian leader, or was this kept secret? [-1: "The Iranian Hostage Crisis." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2014. .] [0: "Iran Hostage Crisis." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2014. .] [1: Byrne, Malcolm. "CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup." CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup. N.p., 19 Aug. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. .] [2: Byrne, Malcolm. "CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup."] [3: Ibid.] [4: "The Iranian Accord." Editorial. New York Times 6 Aug. 1954: n. pag. New York Times. Web. 04 Dec. 2014. .]

After the successful efforts to remove Mossadegh, Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi came into power in August of 1953. In keeping with the American governments hopes, the Shah returned over eighty percent of Irans oil reserves to them and the British. However, Iranian citizens sorely disagreed with this action and especially with the renewed American involvement.[footnoteRef:5] After some time in power, it became clear that the Shah was a malicious leader who tortured and killed many Iranians and put the Iranian economy in danger by spending billions of dollars on American-made weaponry.[footnoteRef:6] Revolutionary groups forced the Shah to flee away from their country, yet the United States did not come to his defense. [5: "Iran Hostage Crisis." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2014. .] [6: Ibid.]

However, the Shah had an advanced stage of malignant lymphoma that began to worsen during the time that the revolutionaries were forcing him out of the country. After much debate, in October of 1979, President Carter allowed him to enter the United States to receive treatment for his illness.[footnoteRef:7] Carter defended his decision to the government of Iran based off the fact that the decision to admit him is purely humanitarian and not political.[footnoteRef:8] The allowance of the Shah into the United States quickly became one of Carters first harshly criticized decisions relating to the Iran. According to an article that the New York Times published just shy of a month after Carter had granted this access to the Shah, the decision was made despite the fact that Mr. Carter and his senior policy advisers had known for months that to admit the Shah might endanger Americans at the embassy in Teheran.[footnoteRef:9] The American Embassy repeatedly warned the Carter Administration that the Shahs presence in America would provide the excuse for sharp anti-Americanism. [footnoteRef:10] Carter was warned about the consequences of his possible decision so intensely that during a discussion with colleagues about it, former Vice President Walter Mondale recalls the President himself saying that if they let the Shah in, And if [the Iranians] take our employees in our embassy hostage, then what would be your advice.[footnoteRef:11] This directly exemplifies that President Carter was fully aware of the consequences that would take place if he allowed the Shah to enter the country for medical treatment. Carter making this decision, despite the warnings he consciously knew, would only pave the way for harsh criticism to follow, much of which would come from the media. The New York Times publishing these articles forces the readers to form negative opinions about Carters decision because they clearly stated that their President was informed on all sides of the matter. The articles lead the American public to wonder why Carter would make such a decision if he knew what dangerous consequences were almost guaranteed to take place. [7: "The Iranian Hostage Crisis." PBS.com.] [8: ABC News. Iran Hostage Crisis 1979 (ABC News Report From 11/11/1979). Online News Clip. YouTube. YouTube, 12 Oct. 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2014 .] [9: Gwertzman, Bernard. "U.S. Decision to Admit the Shah: Key Events in 8 Months of Debate." Editorial. New York Times 18 Nov. 1979: n. pag. New York Times. Web. 14 Nov. 2014. .] [10: Gwertzman, Bernard. "U.S. Decision to Admit the Shah: Key Events in 8 Months of Debate."] [11: "The Iranian Hostage Crisis." PBS.com]

As it was almost accurately predicted, in November of 1979, a group of Iranian student nationalists whom were angry about the Shahs entry into the United States stormed the American embassy in Tehran. The students held sixty-six Americans hostage. One woman who worked as a low level interpreter was released hours after she was taken. She was an Iranian who spent time studying in the United States. She recalls that about ten, fifteen, a group of demonstrators came in front of the building, in front of the embassy compound, and they walked in They actually walked in.[footnoteRef:12] When the interviewer asked if anyone tried to stop them, she replied that in fact, no one tried to stop the men because they said that they did not want to harm anyone.[footnoteRef:13] The guards at the embassy told the people inside to go to the second floor, which was the maximum-security floor. After a few hours, what seemed to be peaceful entry by the student revolutionaries turned into them storming the embassy and blindfolding the embassy personnel.[footnoteRef:14] After a brief time, thirteen of those hostages were released due to the fact that they were women, African-Americans, and citizens of other countries. The head of the nationalist group, Ayatollah Khomeini, explained his decision by saying that those released were already subjected to the oppression of American society.[footnoteRef:15] One of the remaining hostages developed multiple sclerosis and was freed because of his condition. Alas, fifty-two hostages remained by the summer of 1980.[footnoteRef:16] [12: ABC News. Iran Hostage Crisis 1979 (ABC News Report From 11/11/1979).] [13: ABC News. Iran Hostage Crisis 1979 (ABC News Report From 11/11/1979). Online News Clip. YouTube. YouTube, 12 Oct. 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2014 .] [14: ABC News. Iran Hostage Crisis 1979 (ABC News Report From 11/11/1979).] [15: "Iran Hostage Crisis." History.com.] [16: Ibid.]

A calendar of events in a diary written by hostage Robert Ode describes in detail what happened during the four hundred and forty-four days that the hostages were held captive.[footnoteRef:17] Ode writes the he and the other hostages were moved over seven times before their permanent residence became the basement of the Chancery. He writes about the letters he wrote to his wife, political figures, and news outlets, none of which were ever actually delivered. In an interview held twenty-five years after the hostages were released, Rocky Sickmann, another former hostage, describes remembering his experience like it was yesterday.[footnoteRef:18] He says that after four hundred and forty-four days as a hostage, you don't forget the things that they put you through, the mock-firing squads, the Russian roulette, being tied to a chair for 30 days not allowed to speak, being locked in a room for 400 days. Those are traumatic experiences that you just can't zap from your brain.[footnoteRef:19] These experiences are those that the hostages themselves will never forget along with the million of Americans that found themselves glued to their television screens daily, hoping for any kind of information. [17: http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/r_ode/Ode_pages1thru50.pdf] [18: "Twenty Five Years Later, Iranian Hostages Speak." MSNBC on NBCNews. N.p., 23 Jan. 2003. Web. 14 Nov. 2014. .] [19: Ibid.]

In fact, Americans were so invested in the hostage crisis and desperate for any information they could get, that the idea of twenty-four hour news coverage was redefined during this time. Previously, news focused on the most popular events of that hour. During the hostage crisis, news would often delay reporting on the most recent breaking news stories to cover the events of that day relating to the crisis. In fact, ABCs Nightline transformed from nightly coverage to a program completely dedicated to the crisis.[footnoteRef:20] What started out as what ABC News president Roone Arledge saw as the best way to compete with NBCs The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, ended up being a program that held Americans undivided attention with each viewing. Nightline, anchored by Ted Koppel, started just four days after the hostages were taken. The program started off by being called, The Iran CrisisAmerica Held Hostage: followed by the number of days the hostages had been held.[footnoteRef:21] Each episode provided updates on the crisis as well as footage of what was happening that day in Iran. [20: "NIghtline 30th Anniversary." ABC News. ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2014. .] [21: "ABC News Nightline." Archive of American Television. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2014. .]

Often, Nightline discussed President Jimmy Carters involvement with the crisis. The mentioning of President Carter in Nightline, and in American media of the time more broadly was usually not positive. Many Americans felt that Carter was not doing enough to help free the hostages. For example, on day twenty-six of the holding, Ted Koppel spoke of Lillian Carter, the Presidents mother, speaking on behalf of the emotions that her son could not afford to express publicly.[footnoteRef:22] The Presidents mother having to speak on the Presidents behalf left the audience wondering what it was that Carter could not publicly express himself. This resonated fear within the Americans because they could not stay calm if their own President could not even publicly express his emotions. [22: "'Nightline' Archive: America Held Hostage." ABC News. ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2014. .]

On April 25, 1980, the White House announced that there had been an attempted rescue missing to free the American hostages from Teheran. Unfortunately, the effort failed and eight Americans working on the mission were killed in a helicopter accident.[footnoteRef:23] According to an article in the New York Times, the public raised concern about this mission attempt because the revolutionaries threatened the lives of the hostages if there was any military force used to try to rescue the hostages. The public who read this article may have felt that Carter was doing the wrong thing and putting the hostages in danger, as he was specifically told the consequences that would occur if this kind of rescue was attempted.[footnoteRef:24] That same article stated that administration officials said that any military action would be deferred because of the support the United States had from Iran both economically and diplomatically. However, Carter still brought up the possibility of military force to free the hostages.[footnoteRef:25] This one again exemplifies President Carter being ridiculed in the media. The way that the article mentioned the things that would happen if Carter attempted any rescue mission and then states what Carter did in attempt to free the hostages shows Carter in a negative light. Comment by Marissa Lorusso: Where did he bring it up? In a speech? In writing? [23: Gwertzman, Bernard. "U.S. Attempt to Rescue Iran Hostages Fails; 8 Die As Planes Collide During Withdrawl." New York Times. N.p., 25 Apr. 1980. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. .] [24: Ibid.] [25: Gwertzman, Bernard. "U.S. Attempt to Rescue Iran Hostages Fails; 8 Die As Planes Collide During Withdrawl."]

Along with the consequences of military force on Iran affecting the hostages well-being, Carters decision to attempt a military rescue without the consent of the Congress was also an aspect that was negatively portrayed in the media. In Section 3 of the War Powers Resolution, The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States armed forces into hostilities[footnoteRef:26]. Carter did not follow this. The article highlighting another negative part of Carters rescue mission puts Carter in a terrible light. It reflects on Carter not being responsible with his power and not following necessary protocol. Comment by Marissa Lorusso: This isnt necessary, just saying without congressional approval is fineComment by Marissa Lorusso: What article? [26: Ibid.]

This harsh criticism from the media on Jimmy Carter was especially harmful during his race for reelection during the 1980 Election against Republican candidate Ronald Reagan. It can even be said that this harsh criticism from the media all along is what ultimately terminated his presidency. The media leading up to this point was focusing entirely on the Iranian crisis and how President Carter was dealing with the situation. The criticism that the media had towards Carter allowed for the American public to form their opinions based on what they saw and heard. Newspaper articles especially were not shy in expressing their disapproval of Carters actions involving this crisis and how it was affecting his race for reelection. An article in the New York Times entitled Jimmy Carters Strategy written by James Reston commented that President Carter is still dominating the election campaign of 1980 by staying out of it and that he replied to certain questions in debates rather weakly.[footnoteRef:27] Restons statement that Carters strong suit was that he stayed out of the campaign left readers to reflect on the fact that Carter has not been doing any campaigning for this election. In the same article, Reston sarcastically suggests to the reader to give the President credit because he is smart and hes lucky.[footnoteRef:28] This portrayed Carters saving grace as a stroke of luck, more than knowledge or skill. This was also mentioned in another one of James Restons articles, appropriately entitled Jimmy Carters Luck. Here, Reston states that Carter and his political advisers quite cant believe their own luck, [footnoteRef:29] which was due to the fact that no other president has ever come into power against so many unpopular opponents, such as Ayatollah Khomeini, the head of the students responsible for the hostages. Having opponents that the general public dislikes makes any President to look better by default. If the opponent in a matter were one that Americans could collectively respect, then Carter would have had a more difficult time gaining the support of the people. Consequently, Prestons idea of Carters luck lead voters to shy away from supporting Carter, as they were lead to think that Carter came into a situation that was already slanted in his favor. He continues on to say that Carter used the crises in Iran to stay out of the Presidential campaign. He has refused to debate with his opponents on television and allowed them to ague amongst themselves and demonstrate that they have no answers, either.[footnoteRef:30] This harsh criticism implies that the only campaign Carter has to run on is the fact that he has not had a campaign at all. The current President may not have had the answers to certain questions, but this was overlooked by the fact that the other candidates do not have the answers either. This does not show Carters strengths but rather that he did not have any strong candidates running against him that could speak better than he. [27: Reston, James. "Jimmy Carter's Strategy." New York Times. N.p., 16 Mar. 1980. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. .] [28: Ibid.] [29: Reston, James. "Jimmy Carter's Luck." New York Times. N.p., 29 Feb. 1980. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. .] [30: Reston, James. "Jimmy Carter's Strategy."]

Another important aspect of Carters ultimate loss of his reelection race to which Reston points is the lack of attention he had given domestic issues, arguing that the gap between his promises and his performances on domestic policy is wider than the Great Plains.[footnoteRef:31] An article in the Chicago Tribune credited Carters most memorable achievement to the fact that he was even elected in the first place,[footnoteRef:32] and stated that he will be recalled as the president who let inflation get out of control.[footnoteRef:33] Carter focused so much of his presidency on the matters of the hostage crisis, that he was left with little opportunity to focus any attention on domestic issues. It is important to focus on the internal well-being of a country when it is in a time of distress and chaos. Carter neglecting to tend to the countrys internal issues was yet another aspect of his presidency which led to the plummeting of approval rates. [31: Reston, James. "Jimmy Carter's Luck."] [32: Smith, Terence. "Jimmy Cart'er Report Card." Editorial. Chicago Tribune 16 Jan. 1981: n. pag. Chicago Tribune. Web. 03 Dec. 2014. .] [33: Ibid.]

Carters lack of campaigning and focus on the U.S.s domestic issues was so heavily focused on in the media that it must be seen as a factor in Carters eventual loss of his reelection to Ronald Reagan in 1980. In the broadcast following the election, NBC news projected Reagan to win 270 to Carters 15. This projection was made at 8:15 Eastern Standard Time, which was significantly earlier than the previous election.[footnoteRef:34] The broadcasters for NBC stated that the votes flooded in for Reagan, and one stated to never laugh at the chances of Ronald Regan. He has always won [elections] at pretty substantial margins.[footnoteRef:35] The news anchors appeared to favor Reagan, which could have been attributed to their personal opinions or them relaying the opinions of the greater American public. Headlines from newspapers around the country applauded Reagan on his election and emphasized the fact that he won by such a large percentage. [34: Haiker16. NBC News Decision 1980 Reagan Wins. Online. News Clip. YouTube. YouTube. 16 Mar. 2003. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.] [35: Ibid.]

To Carters ultimate dismay, just minutes after Reagan was sworn into office, the hostages were airborne back to America and finally released.[footnoteRef:36] [36: Iran Hostages Released on Day 444. Online News Clip. YouTube. YouTube. 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 04 Nov. 2014 .]

The four hundred and forty-four days that the hostages were held captive in Iran is what will be remembered when the American public reflects on Jimmy Carters presidency. Without doubt, this crisis changed the face of American media from the constant news cycle, to programs completely dedicated to it, to the criticism it gave the president. This phenomenon of the crisis was such a large focus of the media that a full-length Hollywood film was centered on it. Argo, starring Ben Affleck who poses as a filmmaker in attempt to free the hostages, focuses on the dramatic events of the actual crisis. However, as Hollywood so often does, the events were glamorized and portrayed America as a much stronger country in the time of the crisis. The producers were able to make the character of Jimmy Carter appear as a much stronger president than the general public thought of him at this time. Despite the negative opinion that the media somewhat created for the public, Hollywood was able to ignore the logistics and focus on the dramatics that would make this film successful. Even though Jimmy Carter was unsuccessful in his run for reelection, which could be credited to the harsh media criticism he received throughout the Iranian Hostage Crisis, there were other means of remaking his image in the American historical imagination and Hollywoods depiction of him was one way to do so. From Jimmy Carters presidency and for elections to come, media has and will continue to have a strong influence on the general publics opinion of each candidate.