WaPo Shocks With Glowing Obit Of Iran’s Khamenei, Praises His ‘Easy Smile’
Analysis Summary
This article tries to make you think that The Washington Post and similar news outlets are biased or incompetent, especially in how they describe controversial figures. It uses strong emotional appeals and exaggerates perceived flaws in their reporting, pushing readers to distrust mainstream media and view these outlets as overly sympathetic to bad actors.
FATE Analysis
Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.
Focus signals
"In a valiant effort not seen since the death of terrorist leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, The Washington Post outdid itself with an obituary for Iran’s deceased Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
This sets up the article as highlighting a rare and remarkable (though negatively framed) event, implying an unusual standard of journalistic practice, thereby capturing attention.
"The outlet faced similar backlash in 2019 when American military forces, on orders from President Donald Trump, eliminated terrorist leader al-Baghdadi. That obituary described the brutal terrorist and Islamist leader as an “austere religious scholar.”"
This highlights a recurring, yet 'unprecedented' type of journalistic misstep by a major publication, framed as something shocking and noteworthy each time it occurs, grabbing reader focus due to the implied journalistic failure.
Authority signals
"The Washington Post outdid itself with an obituary for Iran’s deceased Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
The entire premise of the article is built around critiquing the output of a major, high-authority news organization (The Washington Post). The Post's authority is implicitly acknowledged and then used as a foil for the article's own critique, leveraging its institutional weight to make the backlash seem more significant.
"Actor James Woods shared a paragraph from the obituary, commenting, “This is how the Washington Post eulogized the dirt bag who murdered 40,000 innocent civilians this month. This is not satire.”"
Quoting a well-known actor lends perceived credibility and weight to the criticism, influencing readers through a form of social proof from a public figure.
"“This reads like a dating app profile,” The Heritage Foundation’s Mary Vought observed."
Citing a prominent conservative think tank and its representative provides an endorsement from an authoritative, albeit ideologically aligned, institution, reinforcing the critique with organizational weight.
Tribe signals
"Critics slammed the paper almost immediately, mocking the conciliatory tone of an obituary for the man who kept his own country oppressed for decades."
This establishes a clear 'us' (the critics/righteous observers) versus 'them' (The Washington Post/those who produced the obituary), creating a tribal division based on perceived moral alignment.
"“Why are you describing the mass murdering terrorist Khamenei like he was a harmless old grandpa?”"
This question weaponizes the identity of 'mass murdering terrorist' against the 'harmless old grandpa' portrayal, forcing readers to align with disapproving the latter as a betrayal of the former identity. It suggests that acknowledging the 'grandpa' aspect is a moral failing.
"“Shame on WaPo. Pure disgrace.”"
This implicitly threatens social outcasting through public shaming for actions deemed morally reprehensible, appealing to the reader's desire to avoid similar judgment by aligning with the critical sentiment.
"Critics slammed the paper almost immediately..."
This phrasing suggests widespread, immediate, and nearly unanimous negative reaction, implying that 'everyone' agrees with the criticism and attempting to create a consensus effect.
"The outlet faced similar backlash in 2019..."
By repeatedly using terms like 'slammed' and 'backlash' from various sources, the article cultivates the impression of a broad and unified group condemning The Washington Post's journalistic approach, manufacturing a sense of collective outrage and consensus against the paper.
Emotion signals
"In a valiant effort not seen since the death of terrorist leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, The Washington Post outdid itself with an obituary for Iran’s deceased Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
The juxtaposition of 'valiant effort' with a critical description of The Washington Post 'outdoing itself' in a negative way immediately triggers a sense of incredulity and outrage about the Post's journalistic standards.
"The Post described the longtime Iranian Supreme Leader — who oversaw the murders of thousands of his own people — as “avuncular” in comparison to his “constantly scowling” predecessor, commenting on his “bushy beard and easy smile” and his predilection for Western literature."
This passage directly contrasts the Post's 'soft' portrayal with an understated but devastating factual moral condemnation ('who oversaw the murders of thousands of his own people'), engineering a strong sense of moral outrage and superiority in the reader against the Post's perceived moral blindness or journalistic malpractice.
"“This is how the Washington Post eulogized the dirt bag who murdered 40,000 innocent civilians this month. This is not satire.”"
The strong, emotionally charged language ('dirt bag,' 'murdered 40,000 innocent civilians') combined with the assertion 'This is not satire' is designed to ignite outrage and disbelief, painting The Washington Post's article as beyond acceptable journalistic standards.
"“Why are you describing the mass murdering terrorist Khamenei like he was a harmless old grandpa?”"
The use of 'mass murdering terrorist' versus 'harmless old grandpa' is a rhetorical device designed for maximum emotional impact, specifically outrage at the perceived whitewashing of a villain.
"“Yes, the Washington Post actually eulogized Khamenei by admiring his ‘bushy white beard and easy smile.’ The man was a terrorist, not Santa Claus!”"
This uses hyperbole and moral judgment ('terrorist, not Santa Claus') to generate a feeling of moral superiority in the reader who can see through the false portrayal, contrasting it with the perceived naive or ethically compromised stance of The Washington Post.
"“Shame on WaPo. Pure disgrace.”"
These direct expressions of moral judgment and condemnation are intended to evoke similar feelings of moral indignation and outrage in the reader, aligning them with the perceived 'correct' moral stance.
"“Washington Post: man who had women beaten and shot for not wearing hijab was merely an ‘avuncular figure’ with a ‘bushy white beard’ who liked ‘classic Western novels’; a Persian Santa Claus rather than one of history’s most despicable creatures,”"
This lengthy quote maximizes outrage by contrasting heinous actions ('women beaten and shot') with a saccharine, innocent depiction ('avuncular figure,' 'Persian Santa Claus'), forcing an emotional rejection of The Post's characterization as fundamentally wrong and morally appalling.
Narrative Analysis (PCP)
How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).
The article aims to instill the belief that certain media outlets, specifically The Washington Post, are biased, inept, or even deliberately misrepresenting figures like Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It implicitly targets the belief that major news organizations provide objective or balanced reporting, suggesting instead a pattern of apologetic or flattering portrayals of controversial figures.
The article shifts the context from an obituary's role in reporting facts (even if unflattering) to a moral judgment of the deceased by the media. The framing makes the 'conciliatory tone' appear not as a detached reportage but as an endorsement or even a 'eulogy' of a 'mass murdering terrorist,' thus making outrage feel like a natural and justified response.
The article omits the standard journalistic practice in obituaries of often including biographical details, sometimes even seemingly mundane or personal ones, to provide a more complete (though not necessarily flattering) picture of a person's life, even for controversial figures. The omission of this context allows the quoted descriptions ('bushy beard and easy smile,' 'fond of Persian poetry') to be presented solely as out-of-place praise rather than potential elements of a broader, factual (albeit disputed in tone) biographical sketch.
The reader is nudged towards distrusting and critically scrutinizing mainstream media outlets like The Washington Post, particularly regarding their portrayals of controversial international figures. It also grants permission for public outrage and vocal criticism of perceived journalistic missteps or biases.
SMRP Pattern
Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.
Red Flags
High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.
Techniques Found(9)
Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.
"In a valiant effort not seen since the death of terrorist leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, The Washington Post outdid itself with an obituary for Iran’s deceased Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
The phrase 'valiant effort not seen since the death of terrorist leader' is emotionally charged and sarcastic, used to negatively frame The Washington Post's obituary and imply it was an undeserved tribute to a 'terrorist leader'.
"This is not satire."
This short, declarative phrase is used to emphasize the perceived absurdity and seriousness of the Washington Post's writing, aiming to elicit a strong reaction and shut down any interpretation that the quoted text might be satirical.
"This reads like a dating app profile"
This phrase is emotionally charged and uses a negative comparison (dating app profile) to ridicule and devalue the Washington Post's obituary, implying it was shallow and inappropriately sympathetic.
"Why are you describing the mass murdering terrorist Khamenei like he was a harmless old grandpa?"
The terms 'mass murdering terrorist' are highly charged and used to elicit a strong negative emotional response towards Khamenei and, by extension, criticize The Washington Post for its portrayal. The contrast with 'harmless old grandpa' further amplifies the perceived inappropriateness.
"The man was a terrorist, not Santa Claus!"
This statement exaggerates the perceived incongruity between the Washington Post's description and the author's view of Khamenei, using the extreme contrast to highlight the perceived absurdity and to ridicule the Post's portrayal.
"loving eulogy for terrorist dictator Ali Khamenei—like he’s a sweet grandfather, not the butcher who slaughtered thousands of Iranians and 600+ Americans"
The phrases 'loving eulogy,' 'sweet grandfather,' and 'butcher who slaughtered thousands' are all highly emotionally charged, creating a stark, negative contrast to discredit the Washington Post's article and demonize Khamenei.
"Pure disgrace."
This is a brief, emotionally charged phrase used to express extreme disapproval and condemnation of The Washington Post's actions, aiming to evoke a strong negative reaction from the reader.
"one of history’s most despicable creatures"
This phrase is highly emotionally charged and uses extreme negative labeling to characterize Khamenei. It is designed to evoke strong disgust and condemnation, further criticizing The Washington Post's perceived mild portrayal.
"The outlet faced similar backlash in 2019 when American military forces, on orders from President Donald Trump, eliminated terrorist leader al-Baghdadi. That obituary described the brutal terrorist and Islamist leader as an “austere religious scholar.”"
This technique connects the current criticism of The Washington Post's obituary for Khamenei to a previous instance of similar criticism regarding their obituary for al-Baghdadi, implying a pattern of inappropriately sympathetic coverage for 'terrorist leaders' and thus discrediting the outlet's journalistic integrity.