ABNA24 - Wyatt Reed highlights contradictions between dominant discourse and on-the-ground observations, calling out double standards in reporting.
Wyatt Reed, an American journalist and correspondent for The Grayzone known for his reporting on U.S. foreign policy and international conflicts, offers a firsthand account that challenges prevailing Western narratives about Iran. Reed traveled to Iran in April 2026 as part of a delegation of international reporters, visiting sites damaged in attacks attributed to the United States and Israel. Drawing on his on-the-ground observations, he critiques dominant media framing, the use of selective sourcing, and the marginalization of alternative voices, while examining how Western coverage shapes global perceptions of Iran and the broader region.
The following is the full text of the interview:
Q - Before traveling to Iran, how would you characterize the dominant narrative about Iran in U.S. and Western media, and to what extent did your firsthand observations challenge or contradict that narrative?
The dominant narrative regarding Iran in the United States and Western media is largely the same as it has been since 1979. That is to say that, according to Western media and the Western perspective, Iran is a deeply repressive and authoritarian “regime.” They love that word— “regime”—which, in this framing, exists solely to oppress its people and exploit them.
This is effectively the only narrative that is allowed to be presented in prominent media organizations. As a result, it becomes the general belief that most Americans are essentially born into, regardless of whether they are intelligent or whether they are critical thinkers. It is the default perspective one grows up with in the United States and in the West.
Q - How would you define the role of media in what many describe as an ‘information war’ against Iran?
It is difficult to overstate the role of mainstream media in what people call the information war against Iran. They are effectively the front line of this information war. They are, so to speak, the first responders whenever any inconvenient information appears. For example, whenever something like the Lego videos appear, you will see people coming to the aid of the U.S. government—and, of course, those people are Western media outlets.
Whether consciously or unconsciously, these actors view it as their duty to enforce the dominant narrative and to hold the line against the rest of the world and what is broadly referred to as the Global South. These are the countries that the United States, the West in general, and certainly Israel seeks to impose control over. This is where mainstream media comes into play: in manufacturing consent for military actions and economic aggression against these countries.
Q - Western media often uses passive language like "a school was hit" when reporting on Iranian civilian casualties. How does this linguistic choice function as propaganda, especially compared to active language used when Israel or the US is attacked?
In journalism school and in any journalism class—even in high school—one of the first things that you are taught is to avoid the use of the passive voice. The passive voice is known to obscure the identity of perpetrators of actions. For this reason and many more, you are taught to emphasize the active voice, which clearly labels the actors and the subject in any given news story. It makes it extremely clear who is doing what to whom.
However, when it comes to countries like Iran, otherwise very professional news organizations suddenly seem to forget this very basic principle of journalism and instead they religiously employ the passive voice in order to cover up the authors of crimes. This is of course employed when it comes to Iran, but perhaps the most notable example of this is Gaza.
Whenever you turn on a news report in the West that is discussing Gaza or especially the victims in Gaza, you will almost never be told that the author of these actions is Israel. This is why they disregard all of their formal journalistic training and use the passive voice: to cover up for the Israeli and often the United States government.
This is done of course not just when it comes to Gaza, but in the Iranian case as well. For example, the attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, Hormozgan province has been reported as “a bomb was dropped on this place,” as though no one knows who did it or why. Similarly, when it finally became clear that Tomahawk missiles were used, they largely went along, at least for the first weeks, with the Israeli and U.S. government narrative.
For instance, Donald Trump himself claimed that Iran possessed Tomahawk missiles. I don’t think this was something that most of the Western media was interested in debunking.
This is, ultimately, why the Western mainstream media exists: to cover up for these crimes. Passive voice is one of their main weapons in doing so.
Q - You have written about how anti-Zionism is routinely conflated with anti-Semitism in US media discourse. How has this rhetorical strategy been weaponized to delegitimize criticism of Israeli strikes on Iran?
The conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is one of the main methods used by Western media outlets and governments to stigmatize and delegitimize criticism of Israeli actions. This is especially evident in relation to Palestine and solidarity movements, but it also extends to Iran.
Western media often fixates on statements made by Iranian leaders decades ago—such as remarks questioning aspects of the Holocaust—while completely ignoring the fact that the second-largest Jewish community in the Middle East resides in Iran. There are thousands of Jews who call Iran home, and none of them have experienced any documented backlash related to Israeli actions, nor have there been reports of anti-Semitic hate crimes against them in mainstream media.
These facts are rarely highlighted because acknowledging them would undermine the narrative that Iran is inherently and institutionally anti-Semitic.
Ultimately, this reveals how important it is for those seeking to demonize Iran or Palestine to maintain a mechanism for dismissing criticism as anti-Semitic by default. In many Western contexts, being labeled anti-Semitic is considered one of the most serious accusations, effectively ending meaningful public debate and excluding individuals from further discussion.
Q - Western reports often add qualifiers like “cannot be independently verified” to Iranian official statements but apply no such skepticism to U.S. or Israeli claims. How does this double standard shape public perception of the conflict?
There is a significant trend in Western media of appending the qualifier that reports coming out of Iran “cannot be independently verified.” This disclaimer is frequently attached to Iranian statements and Iranian media reports, while similar skepticism is rarely applied to statements made by, for example, the Israeli government.
The reason this qualifier is used selectively is that these outlets aim to imprint upon the minds of their readers the idea that certain sources are inherently untrustworthy. In effect, they encourage audiences to view one set of narratives as legitimate and the other as unreliable.
It is a highly effective technique for shaping perception and influencing how readers, listeners, and viewers interpret information. It is also a practice that is used consistently and almost routinely.
Q - Why do Western outlets rely on U.S.-funded bodies like the National Endowment for Democracy for narratives on Iran while sidelining ordinary Iranians as primary sources—and why do they often dismiss or smear alternative platforms such as The Grayzone or Electronic Intifada instead of engaging with their counter-narratives on factual grounds?
In our media ecosystem, the only sources treated as credible when it comes to Iran are often organizations funded by the U.S. government. These include groups like “Hengaw Organization for Human Rights” and others with “Iran” in their name—there are at least half a dozen, if not more, organizations built around themes of Iran and human rights. These are presented as the only legitimate authors or arbiters of Iranian public opinion.
What our media does not tell us is that most of these organizations—if not all—receive funding from what is known as the National Endowment for Democracy, a U.S. government-funded entity often described as a CIA cutout. One of its co-founders openly admitted years ago that around 90% of what the CIA used to do covertly before the public reckoning that followed the Church Committee in the 1970s is now carried out through institutions like this. The exact quote is easily available online.
What is also not reported are statements from the National Endowment for Democracy itself—such as one made a few months ago during a congressional hearing, when a member of Congress asked its president, Damon Wilson, to elaborate on how hundreds of Starlink units had been brought into Iran. As Wilson began to explain, another member of Congress interrupted and suggested that it was not appropriate to discuss the matter publicly. That exchange, in itself, is telling. Of course, anyone can look up these statements independently.
We published a report on this in The Grayzone, but it was ignored and effectively buried by Western media. This is typical: outlets like The Grayzone and Electronic Intifada are disregarded, their reporting dismissed—until, a few years later, when it becomes “safe” to acknowledge the same facts. At that point, mainstream media outlets often report similar findings without giving any credit.
This tactic is used repeatedly. One example is when we challenged what we described as a flawed The New York Times report alleging that Hamas had carried out a campaign of mass rape on October 7. The article, titled Screams Without Words, made serious claims without presenting sufficient evidence. Years later, Western media began to acknowledge that aspects of the story were not substantiated.
A similar situation occurred more recently when The New York Times published what it presented as an exclusive exposé claiming that the Israeli government had influenced the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 vote to boost its candidate’s performance across several European countries where Israel is widely unpopular. However, this was something we had already reported at The Grayzone two years earlier. On May 14, 2024, I published an article titled “Israel Astroturfed Eurovision Vote but Lost Anyway, Government Admits” .
Now, in 2026, The New York Times has effectively caught up, publishing a similar report in May.
This pattern is consistent: first, they ignore our work; then, when ignoring it is no longer tenable, they adopt the same conclusions without attribution. It is something we have come to expect. To us, it indicates that we are often several years ahead of the mainstream media. They may not admit it publicly, but they are aware of it.
Q - What is the single biggest misconception about Iran that Western media deliberately perpetuates, and how would you correct it in one sentence?
The single biggest misconception about Iran that Western media deliberately perpetuates is the portrayal of the country as a threat to the world and to its own people.
My one-sentence response to correct this would be: go to Iran yourselves. However, many will not do that. They are ideologically, professionally, and financially invested in maintaining these narratives. As a result, they very rarely actually visit Iran themselves, because they know that if they did, they would have no choice but to report the truth.
/129
Your Comment