**Edit**
It looks like Iran has limited news networks to one story per day and banned them from the country. The #CNNFail hashtag on twitter and my own comments below criticizing the network for their near complete lack of coverage, even in that one story per day that they're currently allowed, may not be fair.
In CNN's defence if they did report more on the issue than asked by the Iranian higher-ups, it would only validate their claims that western media and interests are puppeting the Iranian people to protest and fuel the propaganda. That's the only rationalle I can conceive of for their odd behavior but then again back on the other hand there have been world events like geonocide, political turmoil, widespread disease, and mass refugee camps in recent history that CNN didn't cover that much either instead favouring things like planes landing successfully and celebrity deaths.
**Edit**
originally posted june 19, 2009 @ 2:35am
It's phenomenal to see that when reporters are banned, cell phones and internet disconnected, the two places to get news of Iran is the Comedy Network's Daily Show with John Stewart who 'accidentally' left one of their correspondents in Iran(episodes available online) and the internet ie: Twitter, Blogs, Youtube, etc., where are the news agencies? Where are the field agents broadcasting from a secure location?
So to compare, you have a news blog The Huffington Post, it's updated by the minute, all of what must be hundreds of thousands of readers are helping submit material and scour the internet for the voices of Iranians, it's full of video content, with deep and meaningful commentary. Then you have CNN who post an article about once a day on the subject, it's shorter than one of the Huffingtons liveblog updates which are happening constantly, they link to some of the Youtube videos as well, they link to images taken from other sites as well, and at the bottom there's a button to load blogs posts that linked to or talked about the article which tells you after clicking "hold on, while we get the good stuff".
The 20 blog posts it fetches aren't even organized and may have nothing to do with the elections. Judge for yourself, TV news is a dead horse, and they're incapable of keeping up with the evolution of the social web. As they try to they loose credibility. There aren't news anchors even, everyone on TV news is a pundit. You can't be a pundit and do what the Huffington Post is doing, you can't be an elitist character pundit and have your finger on the pulse without breaking character. They don't get that the internet isn't about the face of the person presenting the information it's about the meeting place. They don't get that it's organic and untied from Nielson ratings. TV news is like the Microsoft of news. They're trying to do a weird mix and compromise between their old business model and faking their participance in this internet revolution thing. This open sourcing of everything. A world where it's not the familiar names, or business deals, it's the quality that gets you viewers. Just because you're CNN doesn't mean you're anything special here on the web.
This is the reason why Net Neutrality is SO important. It levels the playing field. If Net Neutrality was not enforced, then even though a site like The Huffington Post was better at reporting on Iran they would have a slower connection and CNN would have a better connection just because they're CNN. Support Net Neutrality the future of the web depends on it, this is just one of many examples of it's necessity.
Here are the links to the latest from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/18/iran.mourning.protest/index.html
and The Huffington Post liveblog which is already about 20 posts ahead and updating every 10 minutes: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html
Here's a couple of excerpts on the same topic for comparison:
CNN (One sentance)
Voices shouted "God is great!" from rooftops, from faces hidden in the dark.
Huffington (One update)
3:40 PM ET -- Allah o Akbar! It's just past 11PM in Iran right now, so one can imagine the chorus of chanting that's being sent through the night air. Take a listen, and then read the email I received last night from reader Nicholas.
I cannot in any way claim to know what people are thinking or meaning on the ground, but for centuries, 'Allahu Akbar' has been in the Muslim world a battlefield of meaning and ultimately of political legitimacy. They are five syllables pregnant in meaning, mutability and richness, not simply a ritualistic or fundamentalist dogmatic trope. Nor is 'Allahu Akbar' simply a prayer. In fact, despite all its negative, violent connotations in the West, 'Allahu Akbar' has been uttered by Muslims throughout history as a cry against oppression, against kings and monarchs, against tyrannical and despotic rule, reminding people that in the end, the disposer of affairs and ultimate holder of legitimacy is not any man, not any king or queen, not even any supreme leader, but ultimately a divine force out and above directing, caring and fighting for a more peaceful, rule-based, just and free world for people to live in. God is the one who is greatest, above each and every mortal human being whose station it is to pass away.
The fact that 'Allahu Akbar' is echoing through the Iranian night is not only an indication of the longing of people there to find a peaceful and just solution to this crisis. It also points to how deep the erosion of legitimacy is in whosoever acts against the will of the people, in whosoever claims to act on God's behalf to oppress his fellow human, including in this case some of the 'supreme' Islamic jurists themselves. This all goes to show that Islam, far from being merely an abode of repression and retrogression, has the capacity of being a fundamentally restorative and democratic force in human affairs. In the end, so it seems, at least in the Iranian context, 'Allahu Akbar', God is greatest, is a most profoundly democratic of political slogans. So deep is this call, that what is determined out of this liminal moment may very well set the terms for (or against) a lived, democratic Islamic reality for decades to come.