Friday
May142010
UPDATED Iran Special: Executions, Politics, and the Attack on Nazila Fathi and The New York Times
Friday, May 14, 2010 at 7:27 
UPDATE 14 MAY, 0640 GMT: The authors of Race for Iran have posted an attempted rebuttal of this column. As it is largely a misrepresentation of my analysis and a continuing assault on Nazila Fathi, I will not post a detailed response. There is no value in continued conversation with or even recognition of those who are void of information and deaf on ethics and morality.I will note, however, how the authors met this challenge that I set on Wednesday: "1. Make their own critique of the material surrounding this case of the 5 executed Iranians and present that critique; 2. Alternatively, acknowledge that they have no concern with human rights, justice, and fairness within the Iranian system; 3. If they do so, disclaim any ability to assess the legitimacy of the Iranian Government since they are not concerned with issues — human rights, justice, fairness — which may affect the legitimacy of that Government in the eyes of the Iranian people."
The authors make no attempt to meet the first test, but they do tacitly accwept the second and third challenges: "[Race for Iran] is not focused on human rights; it is focused on Iran and its geopolitics."
UPDATE 14 MAY, 0630 GMT: The Iranian newspaper Kayhan has portrayed Sunday’s executions of “terrorists” as a test of “leaders of recent plots”. However, it regrets that those leaders refuse to “retreat” and “repent”.” (see today's updates).
I look forward to Race for Iran's denunciation of Kayhan, given its linkage of the executions and Government pressure on opposition leaders, for its "pro-Green bias".
The Latest from Iran (14 May): The Meaning of the Strike?
---
Let us assume, as their defenders claim, that the recent attack by the authors of Race on Iran on the reporting of Nazila Fathi was motivated solely by a concern over misleading journalism, with unsubstantiated links and unsupported claims. Let us assume that there was no wider motive of wiping away objections so "official justifications" for the execution of five Iranians could remain standing or of discrediting any attempt --- by labelling any critique as "pro-Green" --- to consider the legal and political context of the executions.
Let us assume that --- in contrast to the authors' claim of The New York Times' "agenda-driven, threat-hyping approach" and Fathi's "misleading reporting driven by an inflammatory agenda" --- Race for Iran has no agenda and no wish to hype any Government or institution.
Let us consider Race for Iran's narrow allegations:
1. Fathi has no basis for the link in the following paragraph:
"The Iranian government hanged five Kurdish activists, including a woman, on Sunday morning in the Evin prison in Tehran in what appeared to be an effort to intimidate protesters from marking the anniversary of last year’s huge anti-government rallies after the June 12 election."
The background to Fathi's story is that, two weeks before anticipated demonstrations on 22 Bahman (11 February), Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour were executed. Many activists at the time saw this as an effort to intimidate the opposition, for Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council, had stated in Friday Prayers:
God ordered the prophet Muhammad to brutally slay hypocrites and ill-intentioned people who stuck to their convictions. Koran insistently orders such deaths. May God not forgive anyone showing leniency toward the corrupt on earth.
Fathi does not cite this background. Instead, she cites Hadi Ghaemi of the International Committee for Human Rights in Iran, who no doubt is aware of this background when he stated, “The executions show that this government resorts to any kind of terror and violence to put down any challenge to its authority.”
Now Race for Iran could have done its own research. They could have considered the background, they could have checked out not only ICHRI's release on the executions but their significant collection of material on cases leading up to those executing and considering Ghaemi's claim of numerous sources amongst "Iranian civil society analysts and activists", they could have even taken a look at the case, dating back to detentions in 2006.
They do none of this. They have no sources beyond the reference to "official justifications" (without actually considering those justifications). They have no context --- political or legal --- for their case.
(Consider how this failure to provide any information beyond the attack on Fathi undermines Race for Iran's limited analysis: "The New York-based human rights activist opines that [the hangings] could lay the ground for the execution of post-election protesters'. But, Ms. Fathi herself reports that the five people executed on Sunday were sentenced in 2008—well before the June 12, 2009 presidential election."
The salient point is that, having been detained for 2-4 years, the five prisoners were suddenly rushed on Saturday night towards execution with no legal process and no notice to lawyers or families. Thus, the question, "Why Now?" The possible --- possible, not confirmed --- answer is that there was a political motive, in the context of current and forthcoming events and developments, for public executions.)
However, that is immaterial for the authors, for they have a wider aim beyond any detailed examination of the case: "Ms. Fathi seems to have been intent on using the story of Sunday’s executions to 'keep hope alive' for a revival of the moribund Green Movement".
Now the authors, who have loudly criticised Fathi's unsubstantiated claims, have no evidence for their own. They have no confirmation of Fathi's political views. They have no evidence of her connections to the Green Movement. They have no proof that the story is being disseminated amongst Iranian activists, inside and outside the country, to whip up demonstrations on 12 June.
But proof, let alone journalistic enquiry or analytic rigour, is not their aim. Instead, they wish to establish guilt by assertion: Fathi and The New York Times have a "pro-Green political agenda".
Which means, of course, that the authors can dismiss any article in The New York Times which they do not like --- without having to resort to evidence or context or analysis --- as politically biased.
(Declaration: I write this wearing the badge, when I have been named by Race for Iran, not of professor, academic, or journalist but of "Green Movement partisan".)
2. Fathi is guilty of significant omission when she calls the Kurdish separatist movement PJAK an "armed Kurdish rebel group" and does not mention that it was designated as a terrorist organisation by the US Government in 2009.
Point taken. But if we are going to talk journalism and omissions, consider this omission from Race for Iran's critique.
Here is how the authors deal with the perhaps significant point that the four defendants accused of PJAK membership (the fifth was accused of connections with a monarchist group): "Ms. Fathi...notes that all five denied the charges of which they were convicted “in public letters posted on Web sites'. (She links to the website of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran to document this claim, but the link takes a reader to a page briefly describing such a letter from only one of the five prisoners.)"
Now the authors could have examined this. They could easily have found letters from at least three of the defendants. They could have cited the testimony of the lawyer for three of the defendants because it was in the ICHRI document that they mention. They could have considered reports on the case by Fereshteh Ghazi, Rooz Online, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Activists News Agency, Rah-e-Sabz, Kalemeh, and other outlets.
They did not none of this because, in my opinion, the fundamental issue of whether the defendants were actually members of PJAK was at best tangential to them. Instead, they want to dismantle the (pro-Green) "preferred narrative" with the possibility that "individuals convicted of terrorist crimes in Iran are members of a group that the U.S. government has designated as a terrorist organization".
So, yes, Fathi could have mentioned that PJAK is proscribed as "terrorist" by the US Government. What Race for Iran wants, however, is much more: they want that to be the dominant statement, not just part of the context. The real question here is not of omission but of priority --- does one, in reporting and analysis, privilege the political issue raised by Race for Iran or the legal and human rights issue raised by the PJAK claim in the trials and executions?
----
Nazila Fathi is not immune from criticism. No journalist should be. On occasion EA has challenged her reporting in these post-election months.
Nor should an author, simply because he/she takes a political position, be denied the legitimacy of critiquing a report. Race for Iran has its opinions;I have mine.
However, when that criticism is made, it should be done fairly, not only through a judicious reading of the journalism but by bringing other evidence and context to the table. In this case, Fathi's original article and analysis is based on two named sources, citation of an opposition website, and background material based on a range of unnamed sources.
Race for Iran's response is based on "official justifications" and precisely 0 sources, named or unnamed.
(Race for Iran has offered no comment on Fathi's follow-up article this week, considering the treatment of the families of the executed and the refusal to release the bodies of the prisoners, and its analysis, "The government’s refusal to hand over the bodies to the families appears to stem from a fear of antigovernment demonstrations during burial ceremonies in Kurdish areas.")
And when that criticism is made, it is not enough to deride the supposed "agenda" of one's target. One's own agenda and sources should be declared. If the authors of Race for Iran wish to turn Fathi's sources into her supposed membership of the Green Movement, then let us know the sources behind Race for Iran's commentary. If the authors want to dismiss Fathi and The New York Times as "pro-Green", then --- in the context of this attack --- let us see the declaration that the authors are "pro-Iran Government", having defended the legitimacy of that Government since the June 2009 elections. Let us see the authors' declaration that, by tearing down Fathi and The New York Times, they may be bolstering the supposed legitimacy --- which has been questioned on issues such as justice, human rights, and fairness --- of that Government.
A final point: Race for Iran's last assault is to link Fathi to The New York Times' reporting, notably by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller, in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War. I presume that is to make the connection that, as The Times prepared a false rationale for the invasion of Iraq, so its reporters with their "pro-Green" agenda are preparing a false rationale for the attempt to topple the Iranian Government.
Nazila Fathi is not Judith Miller. She did not report from Washington or New York in 2009; she reported from Tehran. She did so, even as journalists were being monitored, pressured, and in many cases detained (coincidentally, Maziar Bahari, detained from June to October 2009, wrote a powerful comment on the executions this week; Race for Iran seems to have missed this further example of "pro-Green" journalism). Fathi, as the post-election conflict, violence, and arrests escalated, continued to put out her reports. Finally, in summer 2009, she had to leave Iran.
This week, as other major "Western" outlets ignored the executions, simply repeated the account given by the Islamic Republic News Agency, or made glaring errors ("five demonstrators were killed"), Fathi considered the story in two articles.
Nazila Fathi is not Judith Miller. Her sources are not Ahmad Chalabi. And Iran 2009-2010, contrary to Race for Iran's attempted link, is not Iraq 2001-2003.
Iran 2009-2010 is Iran 2009-2010. And, rather than attacking any journalist who reports on Iran 2009-2010, simply because they do not like the news or the interpretation, it is high time that the authors of Race for Iran pursued journalism in addition to their political mission.
Reader Comments (59)
A HuffPo editor has said he is going to look into any censorship that may have gone on at the Leveretts' latest post there, so if anyone tried commenting before and was blocked, you can try again. I understand that some feel these things are best ignored, but others may feel it's best to nip it in the bud wherever you find it, so for those folks, give it another go and your comment may now get through.
Scott, the Leveretts repeatedly stated in their blog post that they don't support the executions but are criticizing the coverage by Fathi. Also, you confuse the Leveretts and their blog with reporters and their newspapers. It is not the job of the Leveretts to come up with original research or find sources etc. They are in no position to know for a fact whether the Kurds were members of PJAK or not. But that doesn't mean that they can't criticize a reporter who completely leaves out a very salient fact that the executed folks were members of an organization that the US considers to be terrorists. It doesn't take a lawyer to figure this out.
Scott, you OLDER rascal, the Leveretts repeatedly stated that they don't support the executions. This isn't about human rights abuses and unfair trials, this is about poor coverage by a journalist. You conceed that she should not have made an "analytical statement" (that the executions were "widely seen" as a way of suppressing the green demonstrations) SOme people however see that as being more than just poor journalism: they see an agenda, specifically the perpetuation of a talking point which goes something like this: "We should not negotiate with IRan because the regime is unstable and about to be toppled by the so-called Green movement, and the only reason that the Green movement demonstrations have thus far petered out or failed to materialize and pose any real challenge to the regime is because of government repression such as these executions." Well, a lot of people don't believe that talking point, and so get upset when a journalist tries to pass it off as news.
Well then the correct thing to do was to report that statement by the leader of PJAK too, instead of simply eliminating any reference to PJAK's terrorist-list status and Nazila Fathi did.
Like I said, standard practice.
Well, if you're really keen to "distinguish between fact and opinion", you might want to consider the hundreds of statements and reports --- reports with facts --- that ICHRI put out. You might want to have a look at the Zamani and Rahmanipour case or the holding of dozens of others on death row for political crimes or....
The authors of Race for Iran, if they were serious about considering the issue of Government repression and protest, should have been cognisant of that material. They either were not or they did not care.
And no attempted cheap swipe at serious shortcoming is going to overcome that. (Especially when Race for Iran carries almost no news from Iran....)
Fathi referred to protesters and people who might demonstrate but not Greens or the Green Movement. Nor did she claim that the demonstrations would definitely take place were it not for Government repression; she merely referred an effort to intimidate protesters from marking the anniversary of last year’s huge anti-government rallies".
But these are trifles --- the salient point is that Race for Iran tried to shift attention from the executions by setting up Fathi as the main story. She's not.
If RFI is serious about considering Iran's internal matters instead of casting unsupported judgements, then, yes, the authors should become reporters. They should assemble evidence and assess it before ripping at good journalists who --- whatever the errors they make --- attempt to do that.
And the authors should be man and woman enough to admit that the starting point for this story --- if they are concerned about Iran --- is the issues of justice and human rights around this case. It doesn't take a lawyer to figure that out.
Yesterday morning, I suggested the following to the authors of RFI:
1. Make their own critique of the material surrounding this case of the 5 executed Iranians and present that critique.
2. Alternatively, acknowledge that they have no concern with human rights, justice, and fairness within the Iranian system.
3. If they do so, disclaim any ability to assess the legitimacy of the Iranian Government since they are not concerned with issues — human rights, justice, fairness — which may affect the legitimacy of that Government in the eyes of the Iranian people.
They have not replied.
In light of the discussion of executions on this site today, I'll lower the bar.
1. Instead of relying on a general proclamation that they are against the death penalty, acknowledge the specific deficiencies in justice and due process of law in this case. Acknowledge the treatment of the families of the executed prisoners, including intimidation and arrests, and the refusal to return the bodies of the executed.
2. Assess the significance of those deficiencies in relation to their claim of legitimacy of the Iranian Government.
That should not be too demanding. The authors can continue to promote US engagement with the Iranian Government for a resolution of the nuclear issue and regional concerns. They can continue to promote the legitimacy of that Government, albeit in light of the recognition of this specific case. They can even maintain their criticism of Fathi, if they can sustain that after their recognition of the specifics of the detentions, trials, and executions.
I look forward to the authors' response.
Thank you Scott! The IRI "Supporters," some even paid, will hang on to any and all articles that, innocently or not, try to discredit those opposing this government of rape, shame, and blood. I'm really glad someone is out there picking apart their flimsy critique, posing as legitimate reporting.
Yes, Iran 09-10 is not Iraq 02-03. I for one do not want to see another war to find weapons of mass stupidity, but the truth is what it is.
Came late to this discussion and find most of it wasted words. Am not a closed-minded person at all, but anyone can recognize advocacy journalism a la RFI. And discussion with these people is in vain, akin to discussion with IRI about most anything. SL, you are too honest and patient for this conversation, and may be wasting your time 'engaging.' But kudos for your efforts. Always.
They haven't replied because 1- they have repeatedly stated that they're opposed to executions and 2- you're not in a position to demand that others prove their morality to you, and 3- The LEveretts are not required to disclaim and condemn all atrocities that happen first to your satisfaction before they critique a journalist's coverage of Iran.
Seriously Scott, you can only use the human rights issue as a club to bash analysts with whom you simply disagree for so long before it becomes a transparent ploy.
Oh fer Chrissakes Scott, the implication was clear to everyone. And YOU are the one trying to shift attention by ignoring Fathi's pushing of an agenda and instead trying to make this about supposedly whether the Leveretts support human rights or not. You yourself conceeded -- after pulling some teeth -- that Fathi should not have 1- skipped over the fact that PJAK is listed as a terrorist organzation and 2- inserted what you call the "analytical statement" about how the execitions were supposedly "widely seen" and those two points were precisely what the Leveretts complained about ( and your subsequent attempt to give credibility to Fathi's claim about the timing of the executions was also shown to be invalid.) So just give it up already. The Leveretts are not required to first disclaim any and all atrocities that happen in the world to your satisfaction, in order to critique a journalist who quite richly deserved it.
hass/Cyrus,
So your three points are: 1. Fathi is really terrible; 2) Human rights are irrelevant in a case where the authors of Race for Iran are involved; 3. "Give it up".
Let me ponder for a moment..... OK, the answers:
1. No
2. No
3. No
S.
Ms. Fathi's articles rely almost entirely on reading opposition statements online or through receiving phone calls from opposition supporters. Can you imagine the new york times allowing a reporter to cover any other conflict in the world in such a manner?
I'm just trying to picture a NYT reporter covering the Gaza war in Toronto by presenting "facts" based purely on phone calls from various groups in Gaza. Totally absurd and void of any journalistic professionalism.
Redux46,
Yes, you're completely right!
I suggest you to ask at least 50 imprisoned Iranian journalists or those dozens, who had to leave Iran to save their lives, or the editorial staffs from more than 10 banned oppositional newspapers for their opinion.
But obviously that's all human rights rubbish, which doesn't bother you!
Go on with disseminating the regime's propaganda - perhaps you will believe it yourself one day. As for the rest: "Redux" is a real convenient name...
ma bishomarim
Arshama
Um yeah I think if we've proven that this regime frequently executes people with no warning, that is indeed a conclusion we can draw. This is a regime that doesn't use due process and basic human rights standards. Therefore, this is not a regime that the USA should normalize relations with, or that the West should extradite anyone to.
Redux46,
You make and miss important points in the same comment.
Certainly the ideal situation would be if a reporter could fully cover the Iranian internal situation from Iran. Now why is that no longer possible? Why is not possible for Ms Fathi or Borzou Daragahi or Al Jazeera staff to work in Iran? More importantly, why is not possible for Iranian journalists?
So, given that situation, a space opens up --- indeed, there is an imperative --- for others to cover the situation as best they can from outside the country. It's interesting you bring up Gaza --- because only Al Jazeera could operate from Gaza during the war, there was a need to get information --- as reliably as possible, as quickly as possible --- from a range of sources and to disseminate that information.
That's when EA launched its first major LiveBlog --- go back and have a look. The irony is that some Iranian colleagues, who now criticise EA for daring to LiveBlog on the Iran situation, were praising EA in December 2008-January 2009 for daring to bring out the news on Israel's military operation.
In June 2009, when Iran's authorities expelled journalists or prevented them from operating, EA again saw a need for coverage --- quick, reliable coverage. That is how the current LiveBlog began. I never envisaged that we would still be in this position but, given the situation, so be it.
Scott
Oh don't go sulking now Scott.
Ahh, the sound of the anti-climactic emptiness of a hass/Cyrus who has run out of argument....
Thanks for ensuring that the smile on my non-sulking face has just grown a bit wider....
S.
P.S. Let me know when you've discovered that you figure out what the PJAK flag really is :)
Standard practice? Nonsense.
1. There are no standards in Islamic Republic.
2. There is no judicial system in IR to practice law or adjudicate letter of the law.
None of you Islamic Republic diehard have paid any attention to several interviews by Bahramian, the attorney for three of the five people executed on May 10. Go and listen to it before defending the indefensible.
Standard practice? Nonsense.
1. There are no standards in Islamic Republic.
2. There is no judicial system in IR to practice law or adjudicate letter of the law.
None of you Islamic Republic diehard have paid any attention to several interviews by Bahramian, the attorney for three of the five people executed on May 10. Go and listen to it before defending the indefensible.
Scott,
“There is no value in continued conversation with or even recognition of those who are void of information and deaf on ethics and morality.”
Precisely. Many of us had reached that conclusion a while ago.
I refused to read “Race for Iran” or was it “Race for 15 Minutes of Fame and a Suitcase of Cash from Iran”? I refused to waste time commenting on views of Islamic Republic hatchet men/women “L” team. For these people this is a sport that pays handsome dividend, for my compatriots and I this is a matter of life and death of a nation. As I said to one their accomplices who infected this site for a few days they are totally irrelevant and add nothing to the conversation.
Scott,
Al Jazeera English staff work in Iran, with Alireza Ronaghi reporting directly from Tehran (I'm not sure about other locations). Al Jazeera was banned twice, once in 2005 and again in 2007, and of course they had to leave with everyone else shortly after the 2009 June election, but they were back in the country after a while.
I'm curious about how you would compare your live-blog coverage of the war on Gaza with Al Jazeera English's coverage (I don't know if AJ Arabic was in Gaza, too). I will of course have a look myself when I can find the time, but would you say your coverage greatly added to or even corrected/contradicted what AJE offered?
Catherine,
Thank you for the clarification. AJE did re-open its bureau in Tehran, but their staff (including Ronaghi) have operated under very heavy restrictions.
I have the highest regard for AJE's journalism from Gaza during the war, in particular, the correspondents who were on the ground.
However, many people do not know of AJE's work, cannot receive it, or disregard it as journalism. My own motivation for the LiveBlog was to provide another outlet passing on news (including AJE's reports) and drawing upon sources.
Scott
Scott,
"but their staff (including Ronaghi) have operated under very heavy restrictions."
... like having Prof. Marandi as guest de rigueur, I suppose ;-)
And re your setting up a LiveBlog in part to pass along AJE's reporting from Gaza, I'm impressed. I'll have to see if I can find all that stuff - hope it synched!