AP Gives Different Treatment to Captives' Ordeals

History has given us another case study to see how the corporate news media report somewhat parallel stories. On one hand, we have an Iranian diplomat who disappeared for months and now alleges that CIA operatives and Iraqi agents tortured him. On the other hand, we have 15 British navy personnel who claim they underwent such treatment as being given a change of clothes, held in solitary cells, told they were alone, and in at least one case, flicked on the neck with a thumb and index finger.

Media outlets are bending over backwards to dwell on and exaggerate every detail of every fear expressed by the Britons held in Iran. But when reporting claims or evidence of actual torture allegedly performed with US tax dollars, American newspapers and programs could hardly be less interested. Since when is a British citizen merely fearing someone in Iran might harm her or him even newsworthy? Let alone how should it drown out news of actual US agents possibly torturing a man.

Take, for instance, this AP story, wherein one of the British captives describes his experience as "beyond terrifying" because he was mocked for being young, and because one captor flicked him on the neck repeatedly with his thumb and index finger. There isn't much of a human-drama angle here, though I guess it's supposed to be extra scary because Persians are the bad guys -- Kind of 300-esque, perhaps. But other than the propaganda value of demonizing Iran, it's tough to see why editors would run with these weak claims.

Not so for charges leveled by Iranian diplomat Jarar Sharafi, who was apparently released back to Iran in exchange for the 15 British sailors and marines. In an article about Sharafi's ordeal, AP does convey most of the available details of Sharafi's claims. But more important to them in that article are repeated reminders that the US denies any involvement in Sharafi's abduction and imprisonment. That denial makes it into the original wire headline of the main AP article on the subject.

What's more, in the article about Sharafi's ordeal, the AP goes out of its way to remind us that Iran held British captives, detailing the claims they made about their harsh treatment. But in the story conveying the Brits' experience in Iran, not a word about Sharafi.

But here's what I'm really wondering. Somewhere in the AP newsroom -- whatever that looks like -- did someone stand up and say, "Hey, we'd better be careful reporting these two criss-crossing stories about captivity and 'torture,' lest some cranky website editor might figure out that we hate Iranians and favor Britons and Americans" -- a comment which must've been scorned or ignored... or did no one there notice at all?