Saturday
Mar062010
An Open Letter to the Editors of Iran's "Principled" Newspapers
Saturday, March 6, 2010 at 8:28 
TO: The Editors of Alef, Farda, Hamshahri Online, Jahan, Khabar Online, and TabnakFROM: A Journalist in the "West"
Dear Sirs:
I note that on 2 March you published an open letter to 21 American and British newspapers and magazines "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".
Let me say at the outset that I welcome such questions --- the journalist should never rest content that he or she has mastered this craft and has perfect skills of observation, reporting, and analysis. Let me say also that I welcome your advice as "news websites which act independently". I acknowledge, as you are at great pains to point out, that your publications have criticised the current Government; indeed, I have passed on your articles and commentary on Enduring America. (Although I must add, in the interest of our dialogue, that this critique does not cover certain important individuals in the Iranian system, such as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his closest advisors.)
So, as I have read your advice, I do hope you will spare the time to consider my response.
1. You begin: "Western journalists travel to Iran and mostly stay at hotels located in the northern part of Tehran, the capital, where the wealthy lives. Then [they] convey their observations based on what is called 'wants of Iranian people'."
I think it's a fair point to ask if we have had a full picture of Iranian politics before and after the 12 June election. I agree that most coverage has come out of Tehran, just as most coverage of my country comes out of London and most coverage of France comes out of Paris.
I think it's important for journalists to break the initial bureaus of their residences, bureaus, and contacts. So why then, in this search for objectivity, did Iranian authorities confine all "Western" journalists to Tehran from June? Indeed, why did they restrict them to the residences and hotels that you deplore? Why is a Western journalist unable to go beyond his/her bus route from an Iranian press centre to Azadi Square on a day such as 22 Bahman (11 February)?
Why, when it is important to learn about all of Iran and its people are my Internet connections and those of the people who could inform me restricted?
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....Shortly after that the blog post published, the news broke in all western media without the source being verified."
I would be grateful, sirs, if you could point me to "all western media" who published this news. Apart from a reference in The Huffington Post, taken from The New York Review of Books, I don't recall the name of Taraneh Mousavi in the "mainstream" press.
We knew of the claim here at Enduring America, and we did not print it as "news". We did not do so because we could not verify the story, even when it was mentioned in Mehdi Karroubi's open letter asking the Iranian Government to deal with the issues of detainee abuse.
But, sirs, if I may ask in the interest of journalism, why do you confine yourself to Taraneh Mousavi? Why do you not mention the other numerous cases of detainee abuse that have been verified, despite the restrictions on our eyes and ears? Why do you only mention deaths in Kahrizak Prison after the Supreme Leader decides that they can be acknowledged? Why do you not refer to solitary confinements, extended interrogations without charge, imprisonment without trial?
Why do you not even mention your fellow journalists who sit in those prisons?
Why?
3. 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.
Sirs, a real girl --- whose full name you do not even mention --- was unquestionably shot to death. Neda Agha Soltan became one of many whose lives have been taken in this conflict.
The details are not "weird". A young woman, on the margins of a demonstration, was killed by a gunman. Some people dared to film the incident so it would not be lost; some very brave people, including the doctor you mention, tried to save her life; some very brave people tried to catch the assailant.
Sirs, why do you not simply acknowledge the death? Why must you substitute insinuations and vilifications to insist that she must have died to serve "Western" beneficiaries?
Did each of the dozens of people who have been killed since June --- whose faces we did not see because there was no video, whose stories we did not know because there was no Dr Hejazi or music teacher to bring them to us, in some cases whose names have not been revealed ---- die merely as pawns in a foreign plot?
Is that all, as journalists who claim to observe, you can offer?
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.
I believe that the first rule of journalism when a reporter makes an accusation --- even when that accusation is against a fellow journalist --- is to have evidence. So, sirs, where is this footage, this training of protesters, this call to insurrection?
Do I do you the discourtesy of claiming that you train your audience to suppress protest, to quell dissent, to refuse thought? Do I accuse you of serving a political master? Do I allege without information, besmirch without fact?
So, since you ask about "the professional behavior of an 'informative' and 'impartial' media, why do you do so?
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?
Sirs, in the interest of a full exchange, why do you only mention this incident and remove the context of the hundreds of thousands who protested peacefully on 15 June? Why do you not mention the excitement and hope as well as the anger and frustration, the possibility that Iranian people could freely make their concerns known in the interest of democracy and the Islamic Republic?
Why do you not mention --- for I have seen the footage of the claimed "attack" on the Basiji building --- that a few protesters were throwing Molotov cocktails at a heavily-fortified base? Why do you make up the story --- for I have seen the footage --- that they were climbing its walls? Why do you fail to mention that Iranian security forces, safe on the roof of that building, were shooting down at demonstrators? Why do you not mention that at least eight people, none of them from the security forces, died that evening?
I note your claim, "On 30 December, 2009, some people set fire to the public and private properties, police cars and banks." (I think you mean "27 December", when there was a mass demonstration on Ashura protesting for rights and justice in the name of Islam, and when a police station in Tehran was set alight.) I see your reference to the group Mujahedin-e-Khalq and their violence against the Iranian regime. I note your allegation that "Abdolmalek Rigi, the ringleader of the Jundollah terrorist group, is interviewed and introduced as a hero by the Voice of America". (Again, sirs, where is your evidence?)
But why, sirs, do you stop there? Why do you give us a fragment of "some people [who] set fire", Mujahedin-e-Khalq, and Abdolmalek Rigi as the whole picture of the post-election opposition? Who do you, who claims to represent all of Iran's people in your reporting, erase the thousands, ten of thousands, hundreds of thousands who are not firestarters, MKO terrorists, or Jundullah members?
Why do you not acknowledge those who asked, peacefully, "Where is My Vote?" Why do you not give respect to those who asked that their officials be accountable for injustices, abuses, and denial of rights? Why do you claim to see but do not see?
6. Ask your work conscience to judge if your performance has been fair and impartial or not?
With respect, sirs, it is not a question of my conscience or my performance. I am but an interested observer, fortunate to have learned from many Iranian friends and colleagues.
Your question would be better directed, not to "Western" journalists", but to those who are at the centre of this story. What "conscience" has been present in the Iranian officials who, legitimately or illegitimately, hold power? What can you about their "performance"?
One of the invocations for a journalist is to "speak truth to power". Doing so, we do not try to deflect attention from our task by attacking the powerless, by setting up diversions so we ignore those who wield authority, by casting aspersions which are tangential rather than asking questions and finding answers which are essential.
I hope, sirs, that you will return to this task, and look forward to being a "Western" journalist who reports this when you do.
Scott Lucas
Reader Comments (20)
The treatment of the west's coverage has always been unfair. You mention the fact that Iran tried to restrict the west' coverage, but this was not done so previously, and did the west cover other parts of Iran, and try to find a balanced approach? No.
Even in your own blog, there is nothing close to balance, with each news posts or analysis either directly shifting the tone of the story or having slight subtle touches to change the balance. I remember one your entries a while back that when mentioning, you mentioned terrorist in quotation, as if the government is being silly calling him a terrorist. You mocked the fact that there might be any ties to USA, even though it is not beyond the realms of possibilities.
There are lots of issues with press freedom in Iran, but the fact that does exist does not in any way excuse the blatant anti-Iran bias that has been prevelant in western media for decades. And the west media has the potential for more harm than the Iranian media, because of the former's reach, impact, and advanced ability of guising the bias in a cloak of neutrality and impartiality.
Ali
I guess you have lived in Iran and unfortunately you don't know what's a democratic country; in the West you can say what you want in the media even to make fun of the president of the country and all his staff; there is no arrestations, tortures, and rapes because of the freedom of speech; there are several parties compatible with each kind of thought and each party has its papers; there are demonstrations without people's crackdown, without killing them and arresting them; I hope for you that you will savour this freedom as soon as ! and if there is something in the media about Iran, it's true without exagerating; if you accept the fact that USA invade Irak because they knew that the hidden imam will appear there, Or the earthquake in Haiti was because of americans that was trying a weapon against Iran, and you believe in that eveything in the world is the fault of the West,like regime's thoughts, we have nothing in common !
[...] Antwort auf Anschuldigungen iranischer Nachrichten-Websites von Scott Lucas, Enduring America [...]
The precise formulation / us(ag)e of the two conflicting, contrastive, (as a rule) opposite concepts / terms
"anti-Iran" criticism
and
"anti-(Iranian)-government" criticism
is a (THE) world of difference
and
is therefore to meticulously and painstakingly to be observed!
M. Ali,
I am not denying that the portrayal of "Iran" in the Western media is often incomplete or distorted. Indeed, you will note that EA has criticised that coverage on many occasions.
That, however, is not the point of the letter from these Iranian editors. It is trying to rule out any criticism of the Iranian regime --- not "Iran" or the "Iranian people" but the regime --- for its post-election actions. It does so through sweeping generalisations, a partial selection of events, and a series of distortions. The pretext of "bias" is moved to the foreground to sweep aside any consideration of what has occurred on and since 12 June.
Yes, I have my point of view on events, but I also believe in presenting the news --- all the news --- for others to make their judgements. I am happy for any of the authors of the letter, or any reader, to go through EA's coverage and show where we have fallen short of that standard.
At EA, we often put "terrorist" in quotations because of the political use of that term --- it does not mean that we endorse or excuse the actions of an Abdolmalek Rigi. On the specific issue of his ties to the US Government, our coverage has noted the claims of Iranian state media, none of which has been supported with any evidence, on the current situation. This does not deny that there may have been past ties --- Seymour Hersh has put forth that case --- but it does highlight the politics in the current use and manipulation of Rigi's arrest.
S.
My posting (Nr. 4) was addressed to M. Ali and his (in my view utterly unjustified) reproach "the blatant anti-Iran bias" of "Enduring America"
ange paris, it is easy to have certain freedom of speech when there is no risk of the to the establishment. In west, such as USA, there is a strong control of major media, in a self-censured way that does not pose any harm to the establishment. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, most major media was in line with the government's objectives. In 9/11, any hints of dissent was easily sweapt under the rug. The same could be said whenever America ws under any threat, such as the tense periods of the 60s.
In a country like Iran, it is much more difficult to allow free reign, because the outcome would be easily forecasted. Billions of dollars would be channeled, from foriegn countries, to the journalists and media in Iran to wage a lavish and brilliant campaign against the government to establish an outcome that best meets with the foreign power's interest.
Iran is not on the same playing field in terms of threat to its country as other countries currently residing in relatively safety without any outside threat. Therefore, it can not expect to open its doors fully, without having its being violently abused.
Publicola , there is a thin line between anti-Iran and anti-government Iran. In today's PR world, no country ever claims to be against "The People" of any country, it's always the mean ol' government, even though any action against the government harms the people and usually the relationship between teh government and the people is blurred. Iran's government is not a foriegn government imported from another country. It is a complex, populated system full of differing ideas that has risen from the ranks of Iranian people itself.
Scott, the purpose of the letter is not to deal with the post-election itself, but to point out the bias and the unfair coverage of the western media in relation to the post-election. There are a lot of things not mentioned in the letter, because the letter is not a general letter about everything Iran.
M. Ali,
Re. “anti-Iran bias”
Interesting how in trying, quite feebly, to support the Islamic Republic and its many indefensible shortcomings you equate it to “Iran”.
Re. “mentioned terrorist in quotation”
If one were to take an unbiased look (I would not expect you to do so) at the words and actions of the Islamic Republic, which habitually accuses anyone it does not like as “terrorist”, you’d be able to understand why people might use quotation marks whenever referring to those accused of being “terrorists” the it. While Rigi and his gang are terrorists, the Islamic Republic has cried wolf many many times. (BTW there are many discrepancies in the Rigi “arrest”. Oh, yes in quotations marks!)
While, we’re on the subject of terrorism: The Islamic Republic celebrates and in many instances supports terrorist attacks in other countries. Should we be using quotation marks here?
As you say yourself, EA is a blog. You might want to educate yourself about the difference between a blog and news organizations.
You sound like the likes of Mohammadali Ramin, who wants to choke free flow of information, and Kamran “Georgios” Daneshjoo, who wants to eliminate any independent thought.
Thank you, Scott, for your point-to-point reply to the Iranian editors' open letter, which also helps to elucidate their methods of calumniation, i.e. material concealment, exaggeration of minor matters and a general will to ignore realities.
I am convinced that no major newspaper would answer to these accusations, given their obvious casuistic nature.
The editors of Alef, Farda, Hamshahri Online, Jahan, Khabar Online and Tabnak should rather consult their own professional attitude -- if they possess any at all.
Instead of defending their compatriots' rights, instead of trying to get to the bottom of events, instead of unveiling the atrocities, which happened during the past 8 months and long before, they sell their skills for some silverlings and prefer to spread "batel" instead of "haq"!
Truth is not a Western invention, and there is no "Islamic" truth neither -- fortunately the truth is universal and undebatable.
I strongly recommend to these honorable editors to read Fereshteh Ghazi's article on what is happening to the families of all post-electoral victims: http://www.roozonline.com/english/news/newsitem/article/2010/march/04//no-accountability-only-threats.html
A single woman, who has more guts than all these six men together.
Arshama
M. Ali,
think of Pre-Obama times:
the criticism expressed referred exclusively to the handling of world affairs by President Bush and his administration,
as soon as Obama had been inaugurated as president, this criticism finished, as it always had been an Anti-Bush-criticism, not an Anti-American criticism. I remember that there had been reliable polls according to which Obama would have beaten any German politician, if national elections had taken place with him as candidate at the times of his election campaigns. (Before Obama, the then German and French governments had distinctly expressed themselves jointly against Bush's Iraq-War and had denied any participation.)
For reasons of intellectual idleness or laziness many people don't differentiate responsibly between these two sorts of criticism, doing much harm on a personal and on an international level.
I just want to know , how come the western media never talk about the role of the US and other western countries like France, England, and Germany... in the Islamic Revolution back in 1979????
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCjOk2t6Ah4 *
Was it ever mentioned that the OIL contracts with the western OIL companies were to be renewed in 1979, and this time in favor of Iran....
has it ever mentioned the Kept of billions of $$$$s by the western countries, which were either lent to the western countries by Iran or paid as deposits for the equipments which were never delivered to Iran.
Has it ever mentioned how come all western countries were united to NOT to deal with Iran due to the Violation of Human rights during the last regime, which was 1/2000th of what we have witnessed in Iran since the first day of the Islamic Repulic, by all the killings and tourcherings, rapings, exporting girls to the Arab countries, ………. funding and supporting terrorism all over the world, killing US and EU soldiers in Iraq and Afghanestan …….. ect, and still Western countries deal with this regime.
I don’t know what else should a Regime do, so the rest of the world realize what kind of inhumaned, and backwarded people are running that country.
But I think the westerns have known what kind of government is in power in Iran, but due to their own interests kept feeding the Monster for 30 years.
Well I hope Iranians get rid of this Monster forgood.
Ali
In 1960 I was not born and, especially in USA, I don't know because I live in France; perhaps at that time you are right and there were not any freedom of speech and writing in USA but now, in France, you can write anything and you won't have any problem, you are free to think , to write and to speak as you want; politicians in France had a lot of problem with the judiciary systeme, even Mr Chirac, the former President of Republic has recently been summoned to court for something done before his presidency; what are you talking about? !!
You say :"In a country like Iran, it is much more difficult to allow free reign, because the outcome would be easily forecasted. Billions of dollars would be channeled, from foriegn countries, to the journalists and media in Iran to wage a lavish and brilliant campaign against the government to establish an outcome that best meets with the foreign power’s interest."
Why do you want that other countries send money for this kind of sillyness, if there is nothing to reproach himself for something, if a government is appreciated in a country, if leaders ruling the country are honest and think about the well-being of the people(instead of spending money for palestinians or hezbollah)(do you remember , in the demonstrations people said na Gazeh, na Lobnan?)(sorry, an other bracket, iranian regime has recently given 400,000,000$ to hezbollah instead of putting it on the table of the iranians !!), there is no reason to make troubles in this country, because it will be a waste of time and money and the outcome will be zero ! they are not stupid !
In France there are programmes in Tv where actors imitate the president, his prime minister, the other presidents, even Obama,Ben laden or others, everybody enjoys, they are jokes or true stories and it's for laugh.So, my dear Ali, you will see , we will have the same things in our country and it will be better because our country is unique and our people are the best !
Take care and best wishes
Scott
Thank you for your thoughts and your answer to those editors of Iran; I would have loved being a journalist, you are so lucky, and thanks to you that are our voice, we could express ourself freely; thank you and I hope that next week you will speak in Washington as if you were us, in our name; I am very proud of you .
Hugs
Ange,
Thank you very, very much.
S.
Well played ball Scott.
I've been waiting for Iran to make this move for months. I always suspected the Taraneh Mousavi story was seeded with the express intention of dragging it up at some future point to try and discredit something or someone. And here it is. The result: gigantic, clumsy, fail.
Scott,
Well done and I am frankly surprised you were so civil about it. I think my response would have been simply along the lines of "WTF?" Or better yet I would have uttered the famous phrase "Nuts" by Anthony McAuliffe in response to the Nazi demand to surrender during the battle of the bulge!!!
Thx
Bill
"the battle of the bulge"
- carefully chosen words and well reasoned arguments, convincing because correct evidence, the eternal point of view of human rights and justice
those are the most effective weapons against any foe of or against any power inimical to humanitarianism and to humanity -
Thank you Scott for sending this letter and having the courage and conviction to take a stand for all of us who seek the truth.
Speaking of truth...
Listen to the reed -- William R. Stimson: http://www.pekingduck.org/2010/03/truth-in-iran/