What makes news? And how do editors decide whether to cover some events and not cover others? The plan, now suspended, by the leader of a small Christian church in Florida to burn copies of the Quran makes a good case study.
As the New York Times and other news outlets have noted, another fringe church, this one in Kansas, actually set fire to a Quran in 2008 and captured the event on film. But the news media ignored that incident.
What is the difference between then and now?
The Times offers this analysis: first, unlike 2008 incident, the planned Florida event coincided with a larger political controversy over the proposed building of a Muslim community center near the site of the September 11th terrorist attack in New York. Secondly, the pastor of the small Florida church benefitted from a traditional late summer news lull and the demands of a non-stop cable and Internet news cycle to promote his extremist views about Islam.
This raises a number of questions, among them this central one: should news organizations cover the Quran burning if it happens?
A senior executive at a Fox News, one of the major U.S. cable news networks, said in an interview that his organization would not cover the event.
Michael Clemente, senior vice president at Fox News, said this:
"He's one guy in the middle of the woods with 50 people in his congregation who's decided to try, I gather, to bring some attention to himself by saying he's going to burn a Quran if he gets the permit. Well, you know what, there are many more important things going on in the world than that. I don't know what they will be this weekend, but I am sure they will be more important than that."
Clemente said there will be no live coverage, "video" or "still pictures."
The Associated Press said it would cover the event, if it happened. But it said it would not distribute images that specifically show Qurans being burned.
AP executive Tom Kent explained in a statement that “AP policy is not to provide coverage of events that are gratuitously manufactured to provoke and offend. In the past, AP has declined to provide images of cartoons mocking Islam and Jews. AP has often declined to provide images, audio or detailed descriptions of particularly bloody or grisly scenes, such as the sounds and moments of beheadings and shootings, displays of severed heads on pikes and images of hostages who are displayed by hostage-holders in an effort to intimidate their adversaries and advance their cause. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.”
Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, said in an e-mail message that the newspaper had “no policy against publishing things that might offend someone — lots of people are offended by lots of things — but we try to refrain from giving widespread offense unless there is some offsetting journalistic purpose.” He added, “A picture of a burning book contributes nothing substantial to a story about book-burning… The freedom to publish includes the freedom not to publish.”
As for VOA News, which has been and will continue reporting on the story, VOA Director Danforth Austin has said it is “hard to imagine a circumstance under which running video or a photo of a Quran burning would be justified.” He said VOA would make a final decision only after viewing any video or photo that does become available.
Chris Cuomo, a news anchor at the U.S. ABC network, believes news organizations have made a big mistake by publicizing the event. He wrote: “I am in the media, but think media gave life to this Florida burning ... and that was reckless.”
If no one had reported the Florida pastor’s plans, would there have been any protests like the ones seen in Afghanistan or denunciations by U.S. and world politicians and religious leaders? Probably not.
But once a single news organization decided to report the planned event, could other news organizations ignore it? Think about it. Tell us what you think about the role and responsibility of the news media.
Eds Note: We apologize for the lengthy break since we last posted. We’ll try to do better in the future.
10 September 2010
04 June 2010
26 April 2010
Final Response to An Iranian Editor
In our last post, I reported on the questions of a senior editor at an Iranian news website. I only responded to the first three and promised answers to the other questions later. Here now are those other answers.
Can any Iranian journalist enter the United States and report on what they consider as “the realities of US society” to their audience?
According to the State Department, an Iranian journalist who wishes to travel to the United States has to go to a U.S. consulate overseas (Dubai, for example) and apply for a media visa. The decision to issue the visa is made by consular officers. Six such media visas were issued in 2009. There are no quotas and no travel restrictions once the journalist is in the U.S. and they can report on whatever they like.
During the last summer and winter, the Persian service of the Voice of America broadcast a picture of an Iranian lady named Taraneh Mousavi and broadcast the story of her arrest, rape and setting fire of her body. Can Mr. Belida say what was the source for this news in VOA? Can VOA present just one more picture of her, any ID document, address of her school, workplace or house, a neighbor, family of this person?
We reported news of her death based on information from multiple Iranian sources. And we subsequently reported the official denials of her death as carried by Iranian media. Later we reported on the fact that Iranian media outlets themselves had contradictory reports on the woman’s fate. According to a senior editor of VOA’s Persian News Network, we do not know for certain if this woman is alive or dead. However the same editor says the contradictory official information could be easily interpreted as a cover up.
Why did VOA zoom in on last summer’s turmoil in Tehran and encourage its viewers openly or suggest to them to set fire to public properties and break the law? Are these actions considered media related work?
The demonstrations and disturbances in Iran following the disputed June election were news. We reported what happened. We did not (and do not) encourage, or suggest, that anyone break the law. It is possible the Alef editor believes that by advertising a link to which people could send videos of police shootings or other forms of brutality, VOA was asking people to break the law. Like other news organizations, we were merely trying to get access to information and images the Government of Iran was trying to suppress. We in fact advised people who were considering sending us video not to endanger themselves or violate laws.
Why did the Voice of America introduce Abdolmalik Rigi as "the leader of popular Iranian resistance movement" while interviewing him?
Rigi was head of a group known officially as Jondollah or the People’s (or popular) Resistance Movement of Iran.
I was extremely pleased to see the spirited comments sent in after the last posting.
A couple weren’t satisfied with my response to the Alef editor’s first three questions, suggesting the answer that all three questions were absurd was flippant. So let’s try again. Here were the original questions – and some new responses:
Can Mr Belida and his colleagues release any news which is against the national interest of Israel?
If the question means “can VOA and especially its Persian service report news that is critical of Israel or critical of Israeli government policy”, the answer is yes.
When the US government closed the case for the September 11th attack in an unfinished way and with no conclusion, which American journalist protested against this decision? What was the conclusion of this possible protest? What was the answer of US government to revelations made in this regard in the 9/11 documentary made by Michael Moore?
Again, the question is a bit confusing (journalists don’t protest, they report) but I’ll take a stab at it. There are, as one of the other comment contributors pointed out, numerous websites and publications that continue to challenge official conclusions about the events of 9/11. Take a look at 911truth.org for example. And filmmaker Michael Moore’s movie and personal views on 9/11 continue to generate discussion that can be followed on-line. Take a look at his site michaelmoore.com.
Can any journalist in the west question the holocaust and present documents to deny the holocaust?
Yes, and non-journalists as well. That few do suggests most people accept the holocaust as a historical fact. VOA’s Persian News Network, on the program “Straight Talk”, recently reported on the holocaust denial issue and profiled five prominent holocaust deniers. The show went on to debunk Iranian misinformation about whether individuals in the west can discuss and conduct research into the holocaust. They can, even in Israel.
By the way, we attempted to get Iranian officials and others allied with the government to participate in that show. They declined, including an editor at the Alef website who called the show’s host “a traitor.”
Might I suggest that as a first step toward greater understanding that journalists like the editors of Alef drop the attitude of confrontation and harsh rhetoric. As one of our recent comment contributors noted, that “just feeds insecurity and suspicion.”
Can any Iranian journalist enter the United States and report on what they consider as “the realities of US society” to their audience?
According to the State Department, an Iranian journalist who wishes to travel to the United States has to go to a U.S. consulate overseas (Dubai, for example) and apply for a media visa. The decision to issue the visa is made by consular officers. Six such media visas were issued in 2009. There are no quotas and no travel restrictions once the journalist is in the U.S. and they can report on whatever they like.
During the last summer and winter, the Persian service of the Voice of America broadcast a picture of an Iranian lady named Taraneh Mousavi and broadcast the story of her arrest, rape and setting fire of her body. Can Mr. Belida say what was the source for this news in VOA? Can VOA present just one more picture of her, any ID document, address of her school, workplace or house, a neighbor, family of this person?
We reported news of her death based on information from multiple Iranian sources. And we subsequently reported the official denials of her death as carried by Iranian media. Later we reported on the fact that Iranian media outlets themselves had contradictory reports on the woman’s fate. According to a senior editor of VOA’s Persian News Network, we do not know for certain if this woman is alive or dead. However the same editor says the contradictory official information could be easily interpreted as a cover up.
Why did VOA zoom in on last summer’s turmoil in Tehran and encourage its viewers openly or suggest to them to set fire to public properties and break the law? Are these actions considered media related work?
The demonstrations and disturbances in Iran following the disputed June election were news. We reported what happened. We did not (and do not) encourage, or suggest, that anyone break the law. It is possible the Alef editor believes that by advertising a link to which people could send videos of police shootings or other forms of brutality, VOA was asking people to break the law. Like other news organizations, we were merely trying to get access to information and images the Government of Iran was trying to suppress. We in fact advised people who were considering sending us video not to endanger themselves or violate laws.
Why did the Voice of America introduce Abdolmalik Rigi as "the leader of popular Iranian resistance movement" while interviewing him?
Rigi was head of a group known officially as Jondollah or the People’s (or popular) Resistance Movement of Iran.
I was extremely pleased to see the spirited comments sent in after the last posting.
A couple weren’t satisfied with my response to the Alef editor’s first three questions, suggesting the answer that all three questions were absurd was flippant. So let’s try again. Here were the original questions – and some new responses:
Can Mr Belida and his colleagues release any news which is against the national interest of Israel?
If the question means “can VOA and especially its Persian service report news that is critical of Israel or critical of Israeli government policy”, the answer is yes.
When the US government closed the case for the September 11th attack in an unfinished way and with no conclusion, which American journalist protested against this decision? What was the conclusion of this possible protest? What was the answer of US government to revelations made in this regard in the 9/11 documentary made by Michael Moore?
Again, the question is a bit confusing (journalists don’t protest, they report) but I’ll take a stab at it. There are, as one of the other comment contributors pointed out, numerous websites and publications that continue to challenge official conclusions about the events of 9/11. Take a look at 911truth.org for example. And filmmaker Michael Moore’s movie and personal views on 9/11 continue to generate discussion that can be followed on-line. Take a look at his site michaelmoore.com.
Can any journalist in the west question the holocaust and present documents to deny the holocaust?
Yes, and non-journalists as well. That few do suggests most people accept the holocaust as a historical fact. VOA’s Persian News Network, on the program “Straight Talk”, recently reported on the holocaust denial issue and profiled five prominent holocaust deniers. The show went on to debunk Iranian misinformation about whether individuals in the west can discuss and conduct research into the holocaust. They can, even in Israel.
By the way, we attempted to get Iranian officials and others allied with the government to participate in that show. They declined, including an editor at the Alef website who called the show’s host “a traitor.”
Might I suggest that as a first step toward greater understanding that journalists like the editors of Alef drop the attitude of confrontation and harsh rhetoric. As one of our recent comment contributors noted, that “just feeds insecurity and suspicion.”
14 April 2010
An Iranian Editor Fires Back
When I wrote a reply to the editors of six Iranian news websites who had complained about international news coverage of Iran, I wasn’t sure whether they would respond. Well, now the senior editor of one of those websites, Alef, has fired back. He, and I’m only assuming it’s a he, isn’t happy.
For example, the Alef editor suggests I had no business commenting on the joint letter because VOA is “the Official Media of the Government of the United States, a country that has done cruelty to Iran for the past 60 years.” (He also accuses me of “pride and arrogance,” suggesting this is an American trait and the reason why “all the efforts to improve the ties” between the United States and Iran “have not worked.”)
The editor then responds to the three questions I posed.
1. Are Iran’s domestic media free and able to report objectively, accurately and comprehensively on the country’s affairs?
Alef senior editor: “It depends on their professional capacity and facilities. In most cases, within the framework of law the answer is yes.”
2. Are western journalists allowed unrestricted access into Iran and freedom of movement after their arrival?
Alef senior editor: “If they don’t break the law the answer is yes. But there are numerous records of breaking the laws by journalists and western spies in the cover of journalists in Iran. These records obviously have made the Islamic republic of Iran very pessimistic about western journalists working in Iran.”
3. Do Iranian authorities allow citizens to cooperate with foreign media –including providing western news outlets with news and pictures? Are they allowed to have access to them?
Alef senior editor: “Within the framework of the law, yes. Employees and cameraman of some news agencies and western TV networks in Iran are usually Iranians. About the second part of the question, if the western news sources are not against the Iranian laws, access to them is free, as many of the thousands of western news sources are accessible in Iran. But the misuse of this freedom by some of the western media has made the Islamic republic to be very pessimistic about the honesty of these media and make limits regarding the access to them.”
Thus, we learn that in Iran, muzzling the press is fine as long as it is done “within the framework of the law.”
But the Alef editor wasn’t finished there. He had new questions for me:
1. Can Mr Belida and his colleagues release any news which is against the national interest of Israel?
2. When the US government closed the case for the September 11th attack in an unfinished way and with no conclusion, which American journalist protested against this decision? What was the conclusion of this possible protest? What was the answer of US government to revelations made in this regard in the 9/11 documentary made by Michael Moore?
3. Can any journalist in the west question the holocaust and present documents to deny the holocaust?
4. Can any Iranian journalist enter the United States and report on what they consider as “the realities of US society” to their audience?
5. During the last summer and winter, the Persian service of the Voice of America broadcast a picture of an Iranian lady named Taraneh Mousavi and broadcast the story of her arrest, rape and setting fire of her body. Can Mr. Belida say what was the source for this news in VOA? Can VOA present just one more picture of her, any ID document, address of her school, workplace or house, a neighbor, family of this person?
6. Why did VOA zoom in on last summer’s turmoil in Tehran and encourage its viewers openly or suggest to them to set fire to public properties and break the law? Are these actions considered media related work?
7. Why did the Voice of America introduce Abdolmalik Rigi as "the leader of popular Iranian resistance movement" while interviewing him?
I’d like to focus in this post on questions 1, 2 and 3. And here is what I want to say: in the U.S., journalists can and do ask all sorts of questions, even when the questions are, well, absurd. (Can the same be said of journalists in Iran -- assuming of course that they ask questions "within the framework of the law"?)
As for the other questions, let me do some research and address them in another post. This isn’t to suggest the questions have any more merit than the first three but they are quite specific and I want to be precise. Stay tuned.
For example, the Alef editor suggests I had no business commenting on the joint letter because VOA is “the Official Media of the Government of the United States, a country that has done cruelty to Iran for the past 60 years.” (He also accuses me of “pride and arrogance,” suggesting this is an American trait and the reason why “all the efforts to improve the ties” between the United States and Iran “have not worked.”)
The editor then responds to the three questions I posed.
1. Are Iran’s domestic media free and able to report objectively, accurately and comprehensively on the country’s affairs?
Alef senior editor: “It depends on their professional capacity and facilities. In most cases, within the framework of law the answer is yes.”
2. Are western journalists allowed unrestricted access into Iran and freedom of movement after their arrival?
Alef senior editor: “If they don’t break the law the answer is yes. But there are numerous records of breaking the laws by journalists and western spies in the cover of journalists in Iran. These records obviously have made the Islamic republic of Iran very pessimistic about western journalists working in Iran.”
3. Do Iranian authorities allow citizens to cooperate with foreign media –including providing western news outlets with news and pictures? Are they allowed to have access to them?
Alef senior editor: “Within the framework of the law, yes. Employees and cameraman of some news agencies and western TV networks in Iran are usually Iranians. About the second part of the question, if the western news sources are not against the Iranian laws, access to them is free, as many of the thousands of western news sources are accessible in Iran. But the misuse of this freedom by some of the western media has made the Islamic republic to be very pessimistic about the honesty of these media and make limits regarding the access to them.”
Thus, we learn that in Iran, muzzling the press is fine as long as it is done “within the framework of the law.”
But the Alef editor wasn’t finished there. He had new questions for me:
1. Can Mr Belida and his colleagues release any news which is against the national interest of Israel?
2. When the US government closed the case for the September 11th attack in an unfinished way and with no conclusion, which American journalist protested against this decision? What was the conclusion of this possible protest? What was the answer of US government to revelations made in this regard in the 9/11 documentary made by Michael Moore?
3. Can any journalist in the west question the holocaust and present documents to deny the holocaust?
4. Can any Iranian journalist enter the United States and report on what they consider as “the realities of US society” to their audience?
5. During the last summer and winter, the Persian service of the Voice of America broadcast a picture of an Iranian lady named Taraneh Mousavi and broadcast the story of her arrest, rape and setting fire of her body. Can Mr. Belida say what was the source for this news in VOA? Can VOA present just one more picture of her, any ID document, address of her school, workplace or house, a neighbor, family of this person?
6. Why did VOA zoom in on last summer’s turmoil in Tehran and encourage its viewers openly or suggest to them to set fire to public properties and break the law? Are these actions considered media related work?
7. Why did the Voice of America introduce Abdolmalik Rigi as "the leader of popular Iranian resistance movement" while interviewing him?
I’d like to focus in this post on questions 1, 2 and 3. And here is what I want to say: in the U.S., journalists can and do ask all sorts of questions, even when the questions are, well, absurd. (Can the same be said of journalists in Iran -- assuming of course that they ask questions "within the framework of the law"?)
As for the other questions, let me do some research and address them in another post. This isn’t to suggest the questions have any more merit than the first three but they are quite specific and I want to be precise. Stay tuned.
30 March 2010
Ethiopia and the Art of the Outrageous Statement
We are all accustomed to hearing political figures, especially from authoritarian countries, make outrageous statements.
But I think Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi may have uttered the most outrageous statement of all this past month when he compared Voice of America broadcasts to Ethiopia to the broadcasts of Radio Milles Collines, the infamous “hate radio” blamed for inciting the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
Here is what Ethiopia’s state-run news agency quoted Meles as saying:
“We have been convinced for many years and that in many respects, the VOA Amharic Service has copied the worst practices of radio stations such as the Radio Mille Collines of Rwanda, in its wanton disregard of minimum ethics of journalism, and engaging in destabilizing propaganda.”
Meles’ opposition to VOA broadcasts is being used as justification for Ethiopian jamming of VOA broadcasts. It now appears his government is expanding its censorship effort by blocking VOA’s website.
The U.S. government recently fired back at the Ethiopian leader. Acting State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid says Meles may disagree with the news carried by VOA but jamming VOA signals contradicts Ethiopia’s public commitment to freedom of the press. He says it also is in conflict with the country’s constitutional statement that all citizens have the right to freedom of expression “without any interference” and that this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, “regardless of frontiers.”
As for that vicious comparison between VOA and Radio Milles Collines, Duguid said this: “Comparing a respected and professional news service to a group that called for genocide in Rwanda is a baseless and inflammatory accusation…”
I only wish Duguid could have been even stronger in his response.
But I think Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi may have uttered the most outrageous statement of all this past month when he compared Voice of America broadcasts to Ethiopia to the broadcasts of Radio Milles Collines, the infamous “hate radio” blamed for inciting the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
Here is what Ethiopia’s state-run news agency quoted Meles as saying:
“We have been convinced for many years and that in many respects, the VOA Amharic Service has copied the worst practices of radio stations such as the Radio Mille Collines of Rwanda, in its wanton disregard of minimum ethics of journalism, and engaging in destabilizing propaganda.”
Meles’ opposition to VOA broadcasts is being used as justification for Ethiopian jamming of VOA broadcasts. It now appears his government is expanding its censorship effort by blocking VOA’s website.
The U.S. government recently fired back at the Ethiopian leader. Acting State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid says Meles may disagree with the news carried by VOA but jamming VOA signals contradicts Ethiopia’s public commitment to freedom of the press. He says it also is in conflict with the country’s constitutional statement that all citizens have the right to freedom of expression “without any interference” and that this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, “regardless of frontiers.”
As for that vicious comparison between VOA and Radio Milles Collines, Duguid said this: “Comparing a respected and professional news service to a group that called for genocide in Rwanda is a baseless and inflammatory accusation…”
I only wish Duguid could have been even stronger in his response.
19 March 2010
Response to the Response to the Iranian Editors
Our response to the editors of six Iranian websites has elicited a number of comments – most of them on the Farsi-language link. In case you haven’t gone there, here are some of the English-language comments:
“When thousands of people have eyewitnessed Neda's death, you (VOA) have reported it. What is wrong with that? When (opposition Presidential candidate) Mr. Karoubi, and the parents of the people who were raped in Kahrizak (prison) have protested, you have reported it as well. What is wrong with that? When people of Iran are complaining for 30 some years, you are reporting it. What is wrong with that? And etc, etc, etc.”
“The fact that these sites (the six Iranian websites) have not been closed yet indicates that either they represent the government or have accepted to play the game by the current government rules. Consequently, they are not independent by any means. In my opinion, the conservative hardliner rulers of Iran have done more damage to our country than any other enemy we have had in our 3000 years of history.”
“Thank you very much for your short and efficient response to enemies of Iranians who struggle (against) the brutal regime ruling Iran.”
“Great answer, short and to the point. Keep up the good work.”
I have asked my colleagues to look for some critical comments that take issue with the response. Hopefully we will be able to post some of those soon.
“When thousands of people have eyewitnessed Neda's death, you (VOA) have reported it. What is wrong with that? When (opposition Presidential candidate) Mr. Karoubi, and the parents of the people who were raped in Kahrizak (prison) have protested, you have reported it as well. What is wrong with that? When people of Iran are complaining for 30 some years, you are reporting it. What is wrong with that? And etc, etc, etc.”
“The fact that these sites (the six Iranian websites) have not been closed yet indicates that either they represent the government or have accepted to play the game by the current government rules. Consequently, they are not independent by any means. In my opinion, the conservative hardliner rulers of Iran have done more damage to our country than any other enemy we have had in our 3000 years of history.”
“Thank you very much for your short and efficient response to enemies of Iranians who struggle (against) the brutal regime ruling Iran.”
“Great answer, short and to the point. Keep up the good work.”
I have asked my colleagues to look for some critical comments that take issue with the response. Hopefully we will be able to post some of those soon.
11 March 2010
A Reply to the Editors of Six Iranian News Websites
A joint letter from the editors of six Iranian news websites came into the office the other day. It raised several critical questions about the way international news organizations have covered recent events in Iran. It specifically charged that western news reporters and reports are not “honest and professional.”
Why? Well, the editors note a case in which western media picked up an Iranian blog report on the death of a young Iranian woman, who was allegedly sexually abused while in custody after protesting the 2009 election. The editors’ complaint: “Do you think it is professional to spread such far-reaching news through an unknown blog?”
Then they cite the case of Neda Agha Soltan. The Iranian website editors voice suspicions about a young doctor seen in videos of her death. They ask: “Why did he travel to Iran five days before Neda's death from UK [Britain] and a day after the event he leave Iran to UK” where he was interviewed by the BBC. Iranian media have suggested the doctor was the killer, not security forces. Again the editors question the professionalism of western journalists for failing to look into alternative explanations for the young woman’s death.
The letter goes on to accuse BBC Persian and the Voice of America of allegedly encouraging anti-government protesters in Iran – a frequent complaint of Iranian officials. It specifically complains about VOA interviewing an Iranian terrorist, now in custody in Iran, who the editors claim was treated as a hero.
Now here is where the letter gets interesting. The Iranian web journalists say they wrote their letter “to defend the current realities in Iran, not [President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad; you must note that most of us are among the critics of Mr.Ahmadinejad’s government.” They call on western news organizations to re-evaluate whether they have “been fair and impartial or not” in covering Iran.
It is signed by the editors of:
- Alef
- Farda
- HamshahriOnline
- Jahan
- KhabarOnline
- Tabnak
What’s interesting is that none of these organizations have been shut down by Iranian authorities, while several other media outlets inside Iran have been closed and some journalists arrested.
And this raises the question: are these editors trying to do the government’s work in a professional media guise? One could easily imagine a government official summoning the editors to a meeting and “suggesting” it would be in their interest to issue such an open letter to western media.
Because the facts simply don’t support their arguments or their contentions.
So let us throw back some questions at our Iranian editors:
1. Are Iran’s domestic media free and able to report objectively, accurately and comprehensively on the country’s affairs?
2. Are western journalists allowed unrestricted access into Iran and freedom of movement after their arrival?
3. Do Iranian authorities allow citizens to cooperate with foreign media –including providing western news outlets with news and pictures?
Of course, we know the answers are, in order, no, no and no. We would suggest the Iranian editors who wrote the open letter ought to get their own internal information house in order first before presuming to counsel their counterparts in the west.
We don’t minimize the difficulties any responsible journalist in Iran faces today in trying to survive professionally. But all journalists should ask themselves how far can they go and still preserve their self-respect. We note for the record many Iranian journalists have elected to leave their own country. We commend them for the sacrifices they have made to remain true to their principles.
Eds Note: a Farsi-version of this commentary is available on the web here.
Why? Well, the editors note a case in which western media picked up an Iranian blog report on the death of a young Iranian woman, who was allegedly sexually abused while in custody after protesting the 2009 election. The editors’ complaint: “Do you think it is professional to spread such far-reaching news through an unknown blog?”
Then they cite the case of Neda Agha Soltan. The Iranian website editors voice suspicions about a young doctor seen in videos of her death. They ask: “Why did he travel to Iran five days before Neda's death from UK [Britain] and a day after the event he leave Iran to UK” where he was interviewed by the BBC. Iranian media have suggested the doctor was the killer, not security forces. Again the editors question the professionalism of western journalists for failing to look into alternative explanations for the young woman’s death.
The letter goes on to accuse BBC Persian and the Voice of America of allegedly encouraging anti-government protesters in Iran – a frequent complaint of Iranian officials. It specifically complains about VOA interviewing an Iranian terrorist, now in custody in Iran, who the editors claim was treated as a hero.
Now here is where the letter gets interesting. The Iranian web journalists say they wrote their letter “to defend the current realities in Iran, not [President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad; you must note that most of us are among the critics of Mr.Ahmadinejad’s government.” They call on western news organizations to re-evaluate whether they have “been fair and impartial or not” in covering Iran.
It is signed by the editors of:
- Alef
- Farda
- HamshahriOnline
- Jahan
- KhabarOnline
- Tabnak
What’s interesting is that none of these organizations have been shut down by Iranian authorities, while several other media outlets inside Iran have been closed and some journalists arrested.
And this raises the question: are these editors trying to do the government’s work in a professional media guise? One could easily imagine a government official summoning the editors to a meeting and “suggesting” it would be in their interest to issue such an open letter to western media.
Because the facts simply don’t support their arguments or their contentions.
So let us throw back some questions at our Iranian editors:
1. Are Iran’s domestic media free and able to report objectively, accurately and comprehensively on the country’s affairs?
2. Are western journalists allowed unrestricted access into Iran and freedom of movement after their arrival?
3. Do Iranian authorities allow citizens to cooperate with foreign media –including providing western news outlets with news and pictures?
Of course, we know the answers are, in order, no, no and no. We would suggest the Iranian editors who wrote the open letter ought to get their own internal information house in order first before presuming to counsel their counterparts in the west.
We don’t minimize the difficulties any responsible journalist in Iran faces today in trying to survive professionally. But all journalists should ask themselves how far can they go and still preserve their self-respect. We note for the record many Iranian journalists have elected to leave their own country. We commend them for the sacrifices they have made to remain true to their principles.
Eds Note: a Farsi-version of this commentary is available on the web here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)