UPDATING the UPDATED: Press TV Warms up to President Obama?

'Nother UPDATE (1:24 PST Feb 11): CBS news is reporting that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "has officially asked for an interview with President Barack Obama as a direct response to Mr. Obama's call for opportunities to engage" via the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). Turns out Press TV's coverage was an accurate and early barometer of Iran's intentions. Who knew?

UPDATE (4:30 PST Feb 10): AJE's coverage of President Ahmadinejad's call for dialogue adds an interesting layer of depth to the story. Apparently Ahmadinejad "said Iran is ready for dialogue with the US provided the talks were based on mutual respect" in front of a crowd of "thousands of Iranians chanting anti-US slogans," with "many in the crowd carrying placards reading "Death to America" and set alight US flags." Interesting that Press Tv left out the part about the crowd burning American flags, no?
-----------------


Similar to Press TV's coverage of last week's elections in Iraq (see previous post here), today's coverage of the Obama administration is, well, kind of like watching MSNBC. In response to President Obama's repeated overtures to engage in dialogue with President Ahmadinejad, Press TV reported:

The new US president had earlier told the Arabic-language television station Al Arabiya that, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us." President Obama's new tone for trying to engage Tehran has drawn a sharp line between his foreign policies regarding Iran and that of his predecessor George W. Bush.

Sharp line? This is the same broadcaster that was, as of last week, proclaiming that the Obama administration's policies would be no different from those of President Bush. I can't help but think that Pres. Ahmadinejad, via Press Tv, is hedging his bets in the run up to Iran's elections in June. It is also helpful to note that Islamic Revolution resolution for 2009 (published today on Press TV) reiterates that the United States is indeed "great satan," mocks the concept of "change," and suggests that dialogue can only occur "if occupation and tyranny come to an end in the world and the rights of the people of Iran including their nuclear rights are recognized, its assets are unfreezed, all sanctions are lifted and political pressure eased." Ouch. Those seem like preconditions, which, Iran has repeatedly said were bad for negotiations.

My guess is that the Islamic Revolution resolution for 2009 was written mostly for domestic audiences, while the "Iran ready for talks with 'changed' US" article was written more for foreign readers. Oh, the dilemmas of controlling the flow of information in a world of the WWW and google translate!