Thursday
Apr152010
Iran: A Note About the Voice of America, NIAC, and the "Journalism" of The Washington Times
Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 11:11 
The Washington Times, never a shy paper in its assertions and opinions, leaves no doubts about its position in an editorial, "Voice of the Mullahs". With the supporting headline, "Public Diplomacy Takes A Pro-Islamist Tilt", the opinion pieces begins, "The Voice of America is becoming the Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran."Inflammatory stuff, and the newspaper keeps pouring on the gasoline. After giving big space to a letter to President Obama from 70 legislators requesting that the White House "investigate reported mismanagement and bias at Voice of America's Persian News Network (VOA-PNN)", two cases are cited:
1. On March 29, VOA-PNN interviewed Hooshang Amir-Ahmadi, "an anti-sanctions activist called "Iran's pseudo U.S. lobbyist" by Iranian democracy groups. Mr. Amir-Ahmadi expressed the view that Iran's belligerent posture and nuclear program are the natural results of being surrounded by U.S. missiles and bombs; hence, progress can come only through the United States softening its policies toward Tehran.
2. On April 1, VOA gave airtime to Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which has received millions of dollars in federal funds to promote democracy in Iran. Mr. Parsi expressed various odd positions, such as that Israel prefers to have hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power in Tehran, that members of the Obama administration know sanctions won't work but pursue them only as a bargaining position, and - most strangely - that even if Iran succeeded in establishing a democracy, the United States would nevertheless keep sanctions in place. VOA gave Mr. Parsi preferential treatment by banning callers while he was on the air even though he appeared on a call-in show; those who later took issue with his views were quickly cut off.
Allegations that the US Government's media outlets appease or even support the enemy are far from new. The Voice of America was a prime target for Republican Congressmen, including Senator Joseph McCarthy, and even Radio Free Europe, which pressed for "liberation" in Eastern Europe, came under fire in the 1950s.
This time, however, the VOA is just the whipping boy for the bitter conflict between The Washington Times and NIAC. We noted last autumn that one of the newspaper's reporters had channelled the claims of Hassan Daioleslam, who is being sued by Parsi over a series of allegations, that NIAC was an unregistered lobbying firm. The implication soon follows that NIAC is not only lobbying but doing so on behalf of the current Iranian Government.
There is no need to take a position on those claims, which have split Iranian-American activists in the US, to note the shallowness of The Washington Times' latest assault. I haven't come across recordings of the two cases, but even the newspaper's attacking spin is shaky. One does not have to agree with "Iran's belligerent posture and nuclear program are the natural results of being surrounded by U.S. missiles and bombs" to note the argument that Washington's perceived hostility in measures such as the Nuclear Posture Review could prompt Tehran to respond with aggressive statements.
Parsi's supposed statement that "members of the Obama administration know sanctions won't work but pursue them only as a bargaining position" is a distortion of his position, set out in other articles, that US officials may not think that a toughened international sanctions regime will not be possible through the UN but take that line to achieve other goals. One might note, for example, EA's own analysis that the public posture on sanctions covers the "real" story, which is disinvestment by private firms who are quite likely to be in contact with Western Governments.
(Someone at the newspaper might want to reflect, if only for a few seconds, on the effectiveness of a broadcaster which provided only those views which were supportive of the official line of the US Government and/or those --- like The Washington Times --- who advocate military action against Iran.)
Irrespective of one's opinino on NIAC, even more important in this attack piece is The Washington Times' wilful attempt at collateral damage. This histrionic assault on the Voice of America does no good for a broadcaster which continues to provide news and analysis despite the serious restrictions on media by the Iranian regime. If the newspaper is really saying that the broadcasting services funded by the US Government are actually propaganda outlets for Tehran, then be honest and provide evidence for that sensational charge.
The Iranian Government claims VOA is part of America's "soft war" for "regime change"; The Washington Times claims VOA is not Washington's voice but that of Tehran.
Sometimes self-constructed paradoxes speak even more loudly than polemic posing as journalism.
(Full disclosure: I appeared in March on a panel at the US Senate organised by NIAC. I did so in a personal capacity, presenting my views on the internal situation in Iran and on US foreign policy towards Tehran. At no point did NIAC try to "steer" my comments.)
Reader Comments (30)
I can't understand how can you just over and over again defend NIAC and it's president Titra Parsi? The fact still remains that there has been miles of mail correspondence between him and IR officials. He did try to establish direct talk with Tehran even more so during Ahmadinejad's presidency.
And VOA can't go public if the support IR right!? and maybe they are not supporting IR. who knows maybe they had a deal with Titra Parsi for not letting callers disagreeing with his position in. God knows What else.
VOA did wrong and now they have to answer for their doing and maybe there is a very reasonable motivation behind all of this, I don't know.
What I don't understand why do you have to defend NIAC or Titra Parsi? Your comments were not steered by them so what it doesn't prove they're not lobbying for IR, or does it. Wouldn't that be confession to the crime if they did in the middle of all allegations?
Titra Parsi are not trusted by most of the Iranians. The whole world watches Neda killed this guys claims that there is no way Khamenie is aware of the fact. Please let Mr Parsi answer and even VOA, if they're innocent everyone will know. Don't you agree?
Gheseh,
Thank you for this. I think it's one matter for Parsi to defend himself, irrespective of the weakness of The Washington Times case, against the allegations. I think it's another for the newspaper, in the process of its campaign, to try and tear down VOA Persian with two examples which are, at best, distorted in their presentation.
S.
Importance of VOA:
Hida Fouladvand, who works for VOA Persian News Network TV, explored the importance of international broadcasting for Iranian bloggers, saying that the events of the past year have demonstrated "when the Iranians want to pursue information, they have ways to do it."
Fouladvand related that there were 22 million visits to the VOA Persian website during the past year, adding that VOA listeners were no longer mostly older people. Instead, 70 percent of those accessing the site in recent months are 30 years old or under. To best address this audience, VOA is using social-networking tools to reach them--including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube--as well as more traditional TV and radio broadcasts.
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav041310c.shtml
RE: "One might note, for example, EA’s own analysis that the public posture on sanctions covers the “real” story, which is disinvestment by private firms who are quite likely to be in contact with Western Governments."
I can imagine that The Washington Times doesn't read EA, but they really SHOULD read The Los Angeles Times!:
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said adoption of a new sanctions resolution by the U.N. Security Council is more vital than the actual measures taken.
"What is important about the U.N. resolution is less the specific content of the resolution than the isolation of Iran by the rest of the world," Gates said.
He said a Security Council resolution "provides a new legal platform" for individual nations or groups, such as the European Union, to take more stringent action. In that way, the U.N. resolution acts as a "launching pad" for economic strictures that are much tougher than those adopted by the world organization, he said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-sanctions15-2010apr15,0,3513831.story?track=rss
Gheseh2000
85% the readers here are against Trita parsi and all the others lobbying for IR; everyday they are on EA leaving comments and sharing discussions; but today, with NIAC as subject, you will see the attack of the other 15%, one by one ; they have long comments and are so agressif ! Wait and see the invasion ! :-)
Ange,
RE "but today, with NIAC as subject, you will see the attack of the other 15%, one by one ; they have long comments and are so agressif ! "
:-)
For the record I largely agree with am the NIAC's policies and viewpoints since the June 2009 election, but also for the record, both of my posts above are addressing the ridiculous accusation made in the Washington Times article about the VOA and the inability of the author(s) of that article to understand the Obama admininistration's publicly stated strategy regarding UN sanctions against Iran.
Catherine
"For the record I largely agree with am the NIAC’s policies and viewpoints since the June 2009 "
I have discovered it recently and was very surprised , it's your right and we are in democracy :-)
Thank you, Catherine,
For your post #3 :-)
hava ra az man begir /
Sedaye Amrika ra na
take air away / but
do not take from me your VoA
With apologies to Pablo Neruda...
Arshama
Whether or not you agree with Trita Parsi and NIAC makes little difference but to not allow both sides equal time to express their views would be unfair to the people depending on VOA for their news. The Iranian people are not so dumb that they cannot see which side is trying to manipulate them and which side is telling them the facts.
The Washington Times' claim that VOA's Persian News Network (PNN) "is becoming the Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran" (editorial: Voice of the mullahs) is simply not supported by the facts. VOA Director Danforth W. Austin responded to the paper's allegations the same day with a statement we hope The Washington Times will print. The statement is posted in full on our website, VOANews.com, at http://bit.ly/ceAo4k.
In brief, there is no preferred treatment of any messages in VOA PNN programs. Allowing a wide range of voices and opinions underscores VOA's commitment and adherence to a Congressionally-approved charter that requires VOA programming to be accurate, objective, and comprehensive. The two guests selectively cited represent only a small part of what PNN offered its audience that particular week, and each has appeared on, or written articles for, a wide variety of media.
As is the policy at any reputable journalistic entity, PNN does not guarantee regular coverage to any individual or group. This approach is succeeding-PNN programming draws some of the biggest audiences of U.S. international broadcasting and is seen weekly by almost 30% of Iranian television viewers.
Each day, VOA receives compelling calls, e-mails, and letters from inside Iran or from members of the Iranian Diaspora, thanking PNN for bringing them information about the world and events in Iran that their local news media do not cover. It provides Iranian citizen journalists and cell phone videographers with an outlet for airing events that they witness first-hand, but that are not publicized by Iranian television.
In order to keep its people from seeing PNN content, the Iranian government attempts to block our websites and jam our broadcasts. Why go to such lengths if it didn't find the content objectionable?
David Borgida
Acting Director of Public Relations
Voice of America
From an article by Trita and Rouzbeh Parsi:
Ashura, the commemoration and the principle it invokes, proves to be relevant yet again, as those who hold the reins of power in Tehran unleash violence against their own people. Undoubtedly the people of Iran will persevere in their quest for greater freedom and justice through their nonviolent transformation of the system from within. It will indeed be ironic if the Iranian theocracy begins to crumble on the most important religious day of the Shiite calendar.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-27/could-the-mullahs-fall-this-time/2/
I am not stating I support or am againts Parsi/NIAC but I have a hard time following the criticisms that he supports/lobby's for the IR regime? How does the statement above and the article as a whole point to this conclusion? I have read several of his articles and do not recall seeing an overt leaning towards support of the IR, but maybe I am missing something and would be happy if somone could bridge the gap for me.
Ange Paris, where do you get this "85% of readers"? If you mean those who leave comments, perhaps this could be verified, but no one has ever polled the readers here for their opinion of NIAC and Trita Parsi, and it's not fair to project your own opinions on the rest of us. I for one strongly support NIAC for what they have accomplished within the Iranian-American community, and I think the charges of Parsi's working for IRI are nonsense. I base this opinion on nothing more than having followed the story closely from the very beginning, and on my own experience of speaking out to different audiences. What I have said on many occasions to ignorant and prejudiced Americans in defense of Iranian people and Iranian culture could easily be misrepresented (and sometimes has been) as defending the IRI. That does not make the accusations true.
I am curious to know what folks here think about the email traffic between Parsi and the Leveretts, in which Parsi tells the Leveretts he is "in awe of [their] courage and integrity."
http://www.iranian-americans.com/docs/leverett.pdf
Though the above email was from a few years ago--though the Leverett's defense of the Iranian dictatorship has the merit of being consistent--more recently Niac's blog praised the Leveretts again, even plugging their new blog:
http://niacblog.wordpress.com/tag/hillary-mann-leverett-iran/
"I’d also like to note that Hillary Mann Leverett and Flynt Leverett–both renowned Iran experts–have started a fantastic new blog called The Race for Iran. They have tons of great material up already, so click the link, bookmark it, and take a look!}"
Now if the Leveretts are known for one thing, it's the belief that "Ahmadinejad won, get over it."
How is it consistent to praise and fawn over the Leveretts while pretending to advocate democracy and human rights at the same time??
Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Zee
I respect your opinion but I belong to "most of iranians" cited by Gheseh 2000 that don't trust Parsi ( and for me " most of iranian" means 85 % if not we say more than half ! if it's around 50 % ); I have never forgotten and swallowed his article " the end of the beginning", just at the beginning of turmoils in Iran when green movement didn't even exist ( as a movement ); I founded that it was not fair coming from somebody who pretends defending democracy; all people all over the world were excited by the courage of our people except Mr Parsi !! it's curious, isn't it ? and after, we have heard that this gentelman was paid by iranian government .
"Justice" exists and and nobody could buy it , you will see !
Re #13:
In that email Trita voiced his admiration for all the Leverett's had done to prevent war between the U.S. and Iran. It's dated Nov. 2007, when a US-Iran war looked very possible. Remember, the Leveretts did sacrifice their careers in the Bush administration national security council to do so. Granted, they have grossly misunderstood what's happened in Iran since the June 12 election, but that doesn't make Trita a bad person for saying nice things to them years prior!
NIAC made public tens of thousands of emails and documents as part of their defamation lawsuit against Hassan Dai, and the worst their opponents have to attack them with are polite emails. Not that will stop anyone from attacking them...
By the way, NIAC has been very critical of the Leverett's views on the stolen election. Take for instance this blog post by NIAC's Assistant Policy Director: http://niacblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/letter-from-a-tehran-jail/
"Like the “white moderate” in [Martin Luther] King’s letter, the Leveretts do not dare pin their hopes on seismic changes righting Iran’s political injustices. Instead, they recommend the US acknowledge the movement’s futility, embrace Iran’s current leaders, and secure America’s strategic interests through rapprochement. But their cynicism, which dismisses a popular movement without a manifesto, charismatic leader, or strategic playbook, ignores the plain and simple fact that repressive governments are inherently unsustainable."
NIAC staff obviously retain some admiration for the work the Leveretts did in years prior, but they also compared the Leveretts' current views to the Southern Whites who did nothing about segregation and racism! That blog post is fairly polite in style, but nothing less than scathing in substance.
Ange Paris --
In English, to say something is at "the End of the Beginning" is to say that it isn't over at all. It's just moving on to a new phase. Read Trita's other articles -- It's obvious he wants the Greens to succeed.
Trita's main point in that article was to warn against letting outside movements like the MEK hijack the Green movement for their own purposes. (You've seen their articles, statements, etc, where they conflate themselves with the Greens, right?)
Perhaps we can make this a constructive conversation... Guess who is the only organization taking on issues like this one:
"Tell President Obama to Fix the Single-Entry Visa Policy for Iranian Students in the US"
https://secure3.convio.net/niac/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=127
Oh yeah, NIAC.
Before you hate on them, read where they stand on the issues:
http://www.niacouncil.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Policy_index
David
In french, "the end of the beginning" means "stillborn".
David
The article begins with "Iran’s popular uprising, which began after the June 12 election, may be heading for a premature ending. In many ways, the Ahmadinejad government has succeeded in ..." and look at the date : 28 of june !!! as if he enjoyed what had happened .
Sorry, my brain is full of "dust" (loved word of AN) with his master peace !
http://www.facebook.com/notes/national-iranian-american-council-niac/the-end-of-the-beginning/121909785725
In a speech in 1942, Sir Winston Churchill said:
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
Noted for his formidable use of the English language :)
Barry
English generally considers things to have three parts: beginning, middle, end. So "the end of the beginning" is the beginning of the middle! Strangely though, people don't say "the end of the middle," instead they say "the beginning of the end."
Are we past the middle now, and into the beginning of the end for the IRI? Hard to tell, but Regime forces do seem awfully worried! According to the tweetosphere, Jim Sciutto of ABC news has been let back into the country, and Basiji are said to have preemptively cleared the streets with intimidation tactics, in a failed bid to impress the Western news crew with the country's return to "normal."
ABC was not fooled: "Quiet on the streets here in Tehran masks what many still feel about the govt. Dissatisfaction remains very strong." https://twitter.com/jimsciuttoABC/status/12229404877
The news crew probably isn't allowed to roam freely, but it seems news of discontent is reaching them even through the strictly controlled atmosphere! They are scheduled to be in Iran all week, who knows what they might witness?
David,
Re #15
Thank you for your comment, which helped me to understand NIAC's relationship to the Leveretts within the US political framework.
Since its foundation in 2002 a shadow of doubt was casted on NIAC's real aims and policies. To me at least they appeared as a lobby for those forces within the IRI, which wanted to reestablish trade relations with the US, especially Raffers and his gang. This may be one (of several) common myths, but obviously widespread among the Iranian expat community, always critical of self-proclaimed "representatives" of Iranians' interests abroad.
Besides obvious enviousness of other Iranian political groups the main reason for this mistrust is the lack of transparency and the obvious question, how the NIAC succeeded to establish a relationship with a regime, which is notorious for haunting and killing its citizens abroad (Mykonos case, Shapour Bakhtiar, Fereydoun Farrokhzad, to name only a few of more than 80 prominent IRI victims).
Due to US policy changes under Obama's presidency the alignment of NIAC's policies has certainly changed as well, and I welcome its new commitment to Human rights and the Green movement in Iran. However it acts only on behalf of a part of the Iranian-American community and is in no way a representative to a majority.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits" is perhaps the best criterion for all NIAC's further activities.
Arshama
@ David
Thanks for clearing up what the NIAC position was towards the Leveretts back in 2007 and why. I knew the explanation would be along these lines. And thanks also for posting the NIAC Letter from a Tehran Jail blog entry. I rarely visit the NIAC site on my own so I was unaware of their excellent critique of that well-known piece by the Leveretts with the 3 questions about the GM.
HA HA VOA of America pisses off the US and Iran. That says they must be doing something right! And for the record the NIAC has a long history of working with the regime in Iran. Having said that the NIAC has done better job of late in addressing the Human Rights issue in Iran. Only time will tell if they were paying lip service to a hot topic and once it dies down get back to dealing with the coup regime.
1. Here is NIAC's response to WTimes accusations.
2. It seems a lot of expats are falling over themselves to find something wrong with the few non-ideological organisations for Iranians outside the country.
@ ange paris - I don't what is most mind boggling: your so called political critique or the pop psychology: "as if he enjoyed what had happened"!?