Early news reporting about Iranian president-elect Hassan Rouhani tossed around "moderate," "pragmatist" and "centrist." It was left too often to opinion writers and think tank analysts to supply journalistic details. 
On PBS Newshour, John Mearsheimer, author of the "Israel Lobby," asserts " a nuclear-armed Iran would bring stability to the region." He also offers reassurance that "they have hardly any offensive capability at all." 
A Washington Times columnist, Arnaud de Borchgrave, tied a possible Israeli attack on Iran's presumed nuclear weapons program to the U.S. presidential election, and cited an Israeli source as downplaying the Iranian threat. CAMERA's letter to the editor supplied the missing, and contradictory, context. 
President Barack Obama and Elie Wiesel visited the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in connection with Holocaust Remembrance Day. While there, Wiesel challenged the president over Syrian repression and Iranian threats against Israel. Washington Post coverage omitted the biggest news. 
The Washington Post reported an Ha'aretz interview with the Israeli military's chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Benjamin Gantz, as front page news. But as The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg pointed out, something important was missing in the re-transmission: Nuance that did not minimize the danger of Iranian nuclear weapons. 
Fareed Zakaria, the over-exposed pundit of CNN, TIME and The Washington Post, advises Israel and the United States that a nuclear-armed Iran can be tolerated and deterred. His argument, however, rests on bad history, false comparisons and unconvincing empathy. 
The United Church of Christ's General Synod has called for the end to oppression against peaceful demonstrators and the media in Iran. 
The Mennonite Central Committee, a pacifist group that routinely condemns Israel and works to burnish the image of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has nothing to say about the Iranian regime as it suppresses the people it governs. (Second Update)