Chief-editors of six news websites in Iran composed an open letter to some American and European news agencies (newspapers and websites) and criticised their way of covering Iran’s news in the aftermath of the 2009 June election and objected to the unprofessional behaviour of these media outlets in escalating the tension and chaos in Iran and distorting the news about Iran.
The Times' front page on the eve of June 2009 presidential elections in Iran
Editorial note:
Chief-editors of six news websites in Iran composed [an open] letter to [some] American and European news agencies (newspapers and websites) and criticised their way of covering Iran’s news in the aftermath of the [2009 June] election and objected to the unprofessional behaviour of these media outlets in escalating the tension and chaos in Iran and distorting the news about Iran.
______________
Letter from chief-editors of 6 leading Iranian news agencies to their American and European counterparts
Dear colleague,
8 months after 12 June presidential election in Iran, the way devised to cover the series of events by international media provoked us to propound some questions within the framework of the standards of our common profession at the same time reminding you of several main points concerning the way of covering Iran news in the West:
1- Western journalists travel to Iran and mostly stay at hotels located in the northern part of Tehran, the capital, where the wealthy lives. Then you convey their observations based on what is called "wants of Iranian people". For instance, in 2005 presidential campaign, the international reporters saw electoral carnivals and claimed that Mr. Moein was ahead in the poll accordingly. However he gained 13% of the whole polls and became the fifth.
Do you think it is professional and rational to conclude from the interests and the behavior of these residents which consists of 5% of total population of Tehran? Do you know that Iran consists of 1200 cities? While your reporters stay merely in this area, Shemiran, in northern Tehran, which is never a good example to be generalized to the other cities in term of political interests and behavior. Is the way you are following honest and professional?
2- On June 28, 2009 it an unknown blog announced that a young Iranian woman, Taraneh Mousavi, had died after being sexually abused while in custody after being arrested for protesting the 2009 election results by Iran security forces. Her burned corps had reportedly been found in the deserts according to this blog. Shortly after that the blog post published, the news broke in all western media without the source being verified. The Iranian reporters' effort to find the identity, address, job, school, family, friends or even another photo of the girl was unsuccessful. Yet the news coverage was in a way that the protesters participating in the rally carried Taraneh Mosavi photo. Amazingly on July 21, 2009, in the US, a Republican Senator publicized the incident in a speech on the Senate floor carrying a large photo of her. Do you think it is professional to spread such far-reaching news through an unknown blog?
3- Again on 20 June, 2009, a real girl with known identity and family was questionably shot to death around- not among- the protestors. About 2 hours later different videos captured of her death were broadcast on internet. The young doctor in the film, identified as Arash Hejazi, had entered Iran 5 days before the incident and appeared in BBC 48 hours later explaining the weird details of the story and how the nearby members of the crowd caught the shooter. Consequently the international media reflected the story accordingly.
On the days of protesting in which Iran government was trying to quell the climate and the protesters were seeking to stir up unrest, who do you think was the main beneficiary of Neda's death? How is it possible to justify the contradictions in what Arash Hejzazi said in the video and in his interview with BBC? Why did he travel to Iran 5 days before Neda's death from UK and a day after the event he leave Iran to UK? How do you think it is possible a person be shot in an uncrowned street and the bystanders watched, made film or indifferently passed instead of escaping?
Didn't you think of these matters while you were reflecting this subject? Did you have a professional behavior?
4- During unrest in Iran, BBC Persian and The Voice of America, the Britain and USA’s governments affiliated Televisions, encouraged the protesters to continue their protests on the basis of their unilateral stands. The voice of America taught their audiences the way of setting litter bins on fire and how to throw the country into chaos.
How is it possible to justify this measure which is officially and directly supported by western states? Could it be defined in the framework of the professional behavior of an "informative" and "impartial" media?
5- At the end of the protesters actions on 15 June 2009 in streets of Tehran, some people attacked to a Basij post, a place that kept weapons. They threw incendiary bombs and climbed up its wall in order to seize it. In your country what is the police reaction to such behavior?
On 30 December, 2009, some people set fire to the public and private properties, police cars and banks. The leader of “Mujahedin-e-Khalq” (they call themselves as “Iran’s resistance Council”!) which is now in Paris was interviewed by the Associated Press reporter and announced that they had had a crucial role in these activities. “Tondar” group in USA took the responsibility of the clashes and asked its zealots to kill the security forces and the police. The group exploded a bomb on 13 April, 2009, in a religious place at the peak time, leading to the death of 14 people. Why do you think these terrorist groups are able to live in western countries freely and conduct such acts?
Why do you think Abdolmalek Rigi, the ringleader of the Jundollah terrorist group, is interviewed and introduced as a hero by the Voice of America? While he is proud of actions including mass murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, sabotage, bombings and targeting civilians and government officials as well as all ranks of Iran's military. How is it possible to justify this behavior and dual standard of the USA’s official media?
Dear colleague!
You know that there has been a deep misunderstanding between the nations and the governments of both Iran and USA. Now as a professional media should we clear up this misunderstanding or deteriorate it?
Do you want to inform the lawmakers and the officials on Iran realities or present untrue news which is on the benefit of the enemies of Iran and West relations?
Dear colleague!
We, the editors of 6 leading Iranian news websites which act independently in accordance with the Iran’s law and constitution, wrote this letter to defend the current realities in Iran, not Ahmadinejad; you must note that most of us are among the critics of Mr.Ahmadinejad’s governments.
This is to ask you think about the over stated matters and your performance during all these 8 months. Ask your work conscience to judge if your performance has been fair and impartial or not?
Best Regards
The editors of:
- Alef,
http://Alef.ir, - Farda,
http://www.Fardanews.com, - HamshahriOnline,
http://Hamshahrionline.ir, - Jahan,
http://Jahannews.ir, - KhabarOnline,
http://Khabaronline.ir, - Tabnak,
http://Tabnak.ir
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Flashback: Presidential election in Iran: selected items from the British press
05.03.2010 21:34
Flashback: Presidential election in Iran: selected items from the British press
[propaganda alert]
_________________
Lifting the veil
A generation of young women voters is rejecting Iran’s repressive regime and challenging the patriarchal orthodoxy of the Muslim world
leading article, Times, 13 June 2009
_________________
Iran’s old guard are poised to crush any hope of revolution
by Robert Fisk, Independent, 12 June 2009
_________________
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faces defeat if election not rigged, say Iranian experts
by Ian Black, Guardian, 12 June 2009
_________________
Election ‘will end in riots if Ahmadinejad cheats again’ (*)
Analysts fear that victory for Iran’s President will spark violence – and a Tiananmen-style response
by Martin Fletcher, Times, 12 June 2009
________________
Theo-democracy (*)
Mousavi has to defeat the bought vote and the bloc vote
leading article, Financial Times, 11 June 2009
________________
Yes they can – fired-up Iranians dare to dream of a presidential job loss (*)
by Ian Black, Guardian, 11 June 2009
________________
Iran’s bold new face of rebellion hopes to see off ‘empire of lies’ (*)
by Martin Fletcher, The Times, 10 June 2009
________________
Woman who dares to defy Ahmadinejad (*)
by Martin Fletcher, The Times, 8 June 2009
________________
(*) title of the print edition
________________
Ahmadinejad cartoons in the British press (June 2009)
dandelion salad
Homepage:
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/presidential-election-in-iran-selected-items-from-the-british-press/
triumph of the shill
06.03.2010 12:17
anon
Some observations on the Iranian presidential election and its aftermath
06.03.2010 13:24
Flashback: Some observations on the Iranian presidential election and its aftermath
by Phil Wilayto, June 13, 2009
As this is being written, official announcements in Iran today of a landslide victory by incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are being met with cries of “fraud” by supporters of his principal challenger, former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi.
The New York Times is reporting that “at least one person had been shot dead in clashes with the police in Vanak Square in Tehran. Smoke from burning vehicles and tires hung over the city late Saturday.”
It seems clear which side has started the violence. From today's Times:
“'Death to the coup d’état!' chanted a surging crowd of several thousand protesters, many of whom wore Mr. Moussavi’s [sic] signature bright green campaign colors, as they marched in central Tehran on Saturday afternoon. 'Death to the dictator!' Farther down the street, clusters of young men hurled rocks at a phalanx of riot police officers, and the police used their batons to beat back protesters. There were reports of demonstrations in other major Iranian cities as well. ... As night settled in, the streets in northern Tehran that recently had been the scene of pre-election euphoria were lit by the flames of trash fires and blocked by tipped trash bins and at least one charred bus. Young men ran through the streets throwing paving stones at shop windows, and the police pursued them.”
(Note: Northern Tehran is the more affluent part of the city. There were no reports of protest in the much poorer southern part of the capital.)
While there's still time to rationally look at the elections, I'd like to offer a few observations.
The dominant view among Western commentators, as well as some progressive members of the Iranian diaspora, is that Mousavi is a “reformer” who favors loosening restrictions on civil liberties within Iran, while being more open to a less hostile relationship with the West. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is described as a “hardliner” who demagogically appeals to the poor, while making deliberately provocative statements about the United States and Israel in order to bolster his standing in the Islamic world.
In my opinion, both of the above characterizations are superficial. The fundamental contradiction between the two leading candidates has to do with their respective bases of support and, more importantly, their different approaches to the economy.
Ahmadinejad, himself born into rural poverty, clearly has the support of the poorer classes, especially in the countryside, where nearly half the population lives. Why? In part because he pays attention to them, makes sure they receive some benefits from the government and treats them and their religious views and traditions with respect. Mousavi, on the other hand, the son of an urban merchant, clearly appeals more to the urban middle classes, especially the college-educated youth. This being so, why would anyone be surprised that Ahmadinejad carried the vote by a clear majority? Are there now more yuppies in Iran than poor people?
Why is there so little discussion of the issue of class in this election? Is it because so many professional and semi-professional commentators on Iran are themselves from the same class as Mousavi's supporters, and so instinctively identify with them? Myself, I'm a worker, and a former union organizer. When I watched the videos and viewed the photos of the pro-Mousavi rallies in Tehran and other cities, I didn't feel elated – I felt a chill. To me, this didn't look like a liberal reform movement, it felt like a movement whose real target is a government that exercises a “preferential option for the poor,” to use the words of Christian liberation theology.
How about the economy?
A big issue in Iran – virtually never discussed in the U.S. media – is how to interpret Article 44 of the country's constitution. That article states that the economy must consist of three sectors: state-owned, cooperative and private, and that “all large-scale and mother industries” are to be entirely owned by the state. This includes the oil and gas industries, which provide the government with the majority of its revenue. This is what enables the government, in partnership with the large charity foundations, to fund the vast social safety net that allows the country's poor to live much better lives than they did under the U.S.-installed Shah.
In 2004, Article 44 was amended to allow for some privatization. Just how much, and how swiftly that process should proceed, is a fundamental dividing line in Iranian politics. Mousavi has promised to speed up the privatization process. And when he first announced he would run for the presidency, he called for moving away from an “alms-based “ economy (PressTV, 4/13/09), an obvious reference to Ahmadinejad's policies of providing services and benefits to the poor.
In addition to their different class bases and approaches to the economy, Ahmadinejad presents an uncompromising front against the West, and especially against the U.S. government. This is a source of great national pride, and has produced some positive results. For example, President Obama has now actually admitted, at least in part, that it was the U.S. that in 1953 overthrew the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh.
The whole idea that tossing Ahmadinejad out of office would make it easier to change U.S. policy toward Iran is, in my opinion, very naive. Was Dr. Mossadegh a crazy demagogue? No, but he did lead the movement to nationalize Iran's oil industry. If Mousavi, as president, were to strongly state that he would refuse to consider any surrender of Iran's sovereign right to develop nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes, that he would continue to support the resistance organizations Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, that he would continue to try and increase Iran's political role in the Middle East, and that he would defend state ownership of the oil and gas industries, would the Western media portray him as a reasonable man?
Further, there's the nature of Mousavi's election campaign. Obama called it a “robust” debate, which it certainly was, and a good refutation of the lie that Iran has no democracy. But it is also a political movement, one capable of drawing large crowds out into the streets, ready to engage in street battles with the president's supporters and now the police.
Is it possible that the U.S. government, its military and its 16 intelligence agencies are piously standing on the sidelines of this developing conflict, respecting Iran's right to work out its internal differences on its own? Could we expect that approach from the same government that still maintains its own 30-year sanctions against Iran, is responsible for three sets of U.N.-imposed sanctions, annually spends $70-90 million to fund “dissident” organizations within Iran and, according to the respected investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, actually has U.S. military personnel on the ground within Iran, supporting terrorist organizations like the Jundallah and trying to foment armed rebellions against the government?
The point has been made that U.S. neocons were hoping for an Ahmadinejad victory, on the theory that he makes a convenient target for Iran-bashers. But the neocons are no longer in power in Washington. They got voted out of office and are back to writing position papers for right-wing think tanks. We now have a “pragmatic” administration, one that would like to first dialog with the countries it seeks to control.
I think what is important to realize is that Washington wasn't just hoping for a “reform” candidate to win the election – it's been hoping for an anti-government movement that looks to the West for its political and economic inspiration. Mousavi backer and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is a free-market advocate and businessman whom Forbes magazine includes in its list of the world's richest people. Does Rafsanjani identify with or seek to speak for the poor? Does Mousavi?
What kind of Iran are the Mousavi forces really hoping to create? And why is Washington – whose preference for “democracy” is trumped every time by its insatiable appetite for raw materials, cheap labor, new markets and endless profits – so sympathetic to the “reform” movements in Iran and in every other country whose people have nationalized its own resources?
Would Iran be better off with a president who, instead of qualifying everything he says about the Holocaust, just came out directly and said, “Look, there's no question that millions of Jewish people were murdered in a campaign of genocide, but how does that justify creating a Jewish state on land that is the ancestral home of the Palestinians?” That would certainly make the job of anti-war activists much easier - and if you look hard enough, you can find something close to those words in Ahmadinejad's statements.
But it wouldn't be enough. The U.S. government and its complementary news media would just find another hook on which to hang their demonization of Iran and its government.
The days ahead promise to be challenging ones for all those who oppose war, sanctions and interference in the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran. As we pursue that work, it would be good not to get caught up in what is sure to be a tsunami of criticism of a government trying to resolve a crisis that in all likelihood is not entirely homegrown.
* Phil Wilayto is the editor of The Virginia Defender newspaper and author of “In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation's Journey through the Islamic Republic.” He can be reached:
© 2009 by Phil Wilayto – Permission granted for republication, with attribution.
Phil Wilayto
e-mail:
DefendersFJE@hotmail.com
Homepage:
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/8020