The Iranian Hostage Crisis: A War of Words, not Worlds
Abstract
U.S. media presented the Iranian hostage crisis as a decisive attack against America
and therefore the American people. Initially, the media discussed only factual information
on the crisis and referred to the players according to their occupation; however,
every hostage soon appeared as a victim whose life hung in the balance of terrorists,
led by a religious fanatic. No longer were the hostage takers viewed as students
under the orders of a religious leader. The purpose behind the embassy takeover and
atrocities committed under the U.S.-installed shah regime were never mentioned, at
least in the U.S. media intended for the public eye. The absence of the other side’s
perspective led to the formation of a unilateral opinion regarding the Iranian hostage
crisis, the hostage takers, and the hostages; surely, it was a battle between good
and evil forces. President Carter’s administration preached passivity; other politicians,
such as former Texas Governor John Connally, devised daring rescue plans in an effort
to gain political clout in a fragile America. No matter the course of action advised
the victimized hostages had been the main concern and the loss of one life as a motive
for war between the U.S. and Iran. Both countries publicly presented their own agendas
with conflicting outcomes and neither country was willing to negotiate, a sign of
weakness. The outcome of the crisis was the last 52 hostages being freely returned
to the United States 444 days later, leading to an unforeseen turn in events. Many
of the hostages, who had been depicted as abused and tortured, told stories of sympathy
and remorse. Some questioned why America saw the hostage takers as terrorists and
not students, while others questioned why America built the hostage crisis into such
a spectacle. The hostages’ accounts of American imperialism and Iranian hardship
did not make the ten o’clock news; their stories may have led to a more balanced take
on the hostage crisis. I intend not to say which view, the hostages or the medias,
was correct or wrong, but to present both sides of the Iranian hostage crisis dialogue
and analyze the vivid contrasts between the two; I also intend to analyze the internal
divisions within the hostage accounts. In a time of great danger, U.S. politics and
media worked as one entity and presented an argument drastically different from that
of many hostages.
Description
Winner of the 2008 Robert F. Durden Prize
Type
Course paperPermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/838Citation
Simon, Andrew (2008). The Iranian Hostage Crisis: A War of Words, not Worlds. Course paper, Duke University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/838.Collections
More Info
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: Undergraduate Honors Theses and Student papers
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info