Iran urged to loosen hold on BBC Persia

According to Iran's own broadcaster, Press TV, Iran's Majlis Research Center has proposed loosening the restrictions on foreign media outlets "working against the interests of the Islamic Republic."

Following an analysis of the tactics employed by the British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language channel, the Institute for Political Studies in Iran's Parliament Research Center tipped off the government about its critical approach toward such channels.

Iran has claimed the channel is attempting to recruit Iranians for "espionage and psychological warfare".

"The public is concerned that the establishment of BBC Persian is in line with the intervening and opportunist policies of the British government in domestic affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran," said an Iranian official before the launch of the channel in October.

The report given by the institute proposed that launching such networks would be a large step in undertaking "soft overthrow projects", stating that BBC Persian is more subtle in this endeavor than the US-backed VOA.

The report went on to discuss the recent advances in global technology throughout the world today including the wide prominence of the Internet usage among Iran's youth "in an effort to caution the Iranian government."

"In today's world, a full-scale media war is taking place between Iran and the West," read the report.

The report urged the Islamic Republic to use this opportunity to fight "foreign movements aimed at toppling the government."

Pointing to countless Internet websites and web proxies, the report said, "Preventing the establishment of satellite channels is not an effective method to break the Iranian audience's connection with such media."

The Majlis report called for "the launch of rival channels and incorporation of as much information content as possible" to neutralize the effect of anti-Islamic Republic media.

"The government should not conceive NGO's and Persian-language channels as a threat."

The report put forward a proposal to the Iranian government to grant such channels as BBC Persian the permission to work in Iran, within the guidelines of the country's constitution.

The institute further demanded the government maintains vigilance in an effort to prevent the cited media from carrying out their "soft toppling projects" in the country.

Bias Found in VOA Broadcasts to Iran

According to Nicholas Kralev's Washington Times article, the State Department investigation has found serious flaws in Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts to Iran. The report charged VOA's Persian News Network (PNN) broadcasts of being politically biased.

Apparently, none of the executive producers even understand Farsi, which means its broadcasts are "aired without high-level approval."

"In part because of the language issue, managing editors report not to the executive producer of their show, but to a Persian-speaking senior executive editor," the report said." This arrangement is the source of confusion and sometimes of conflict. Lacking the language of the programs they oversee, as well as a background in Iranian affairs, executive producers must rely on their managing editor to approve the shows' content and resolve differences of opinion among staff," it said. Those differences often result in deep mistrust and "a perception of cronyism" among the staff, "the operation of cliques, and the hiring and rewarding of unqualified people," which "creates ill will and can hamper the employee's effectiveness in the workplace," the report said.

Over the last decade or so, the U.S. government has increased its spending on broadcasting to Iran, allocating $17 million this year alone, as it considers it an important public diplomacy tool to influence Iranian public opinion.

The BBG's mission, according to its 2008-13 strategic plan, is "to promote freedom and democracy and to enhance understanding through multimedia communication of accurate, objective and balanced news, information, and other programming about America and the world to audiences overseas." But apparently some "anti-American content to creep into broadcasts."

"While everyone involved with the operation is cognizant of the importance of VOA broadcasting to Iran, some of those who work in PNN appear to lack a clear understanding of the mission of PNN and the centrality of the VOA charter to their work, underscoring the need for additional training," the report said.

Mehdi Jedinia, an Iranian journalist, said that "unfortunately, VOA Persian is not making full use of the opportunity to reach Iranians and does not fully reflect U.S. diplomacy toward Iran."
The service "could help influence Iranian public opinion if they created more imaginative programming that fits Iranian circumstances," he said. "However, despite repeated statements by the U.S. government that it has no intention of forcing regime change in Iran, these media seem to support Tehran's allegations that the United States wants to change the Iranian government by financially supporting the opposition, imposing economic sanctions and isolating Iran in the international arena."

He said the service features "interviews with the family of the late shah and Iranian opposition leaders" and sometimes "has superficial and shallow programs that come through more as ideological propaganda, rather than professional journalism."

The State Department report also questioned the continuation of PNN's radio service, "given the round-the-clock broadcasts of Radio Farda," a joint project between VOA and U.S.-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which is based in Prague.

Mehdi Khalaji, a Washington Institute fellow and former Radio Farda producer wrote that, "Some of Radio Farda's Prague team members are noticeably anti-American, which can be discerned from their language and the news they choose to produce," and "some Washington team members are well-known for their anti-Islamic stance, their opposition to the Iranian regime," and "they reflect their own political views in news production as well as feature segments," he wrote.

Though the report is not all negative, “VOA successfully built PNN into its first full-fledged network in an extraordinarily short period of time,” said the report. “Given the U.S. strategic interest in communicating with Iranians, PNN represents a major achievement in setting up a network that reaches approximately 29 percent of Iranians in Iran," the report said.

VOA's management welcomed the State Department recommendations.

See the full State department report here.

NHK World? Not so much....

Recently re-launched NHK World (of the Japanese Broadcasting Corporation) may want to reconsider the "World" part of its name. While we had previously speculated about what NHK World niche would be, after spending some time on their website, I'm not sure if they know either.

I assumed that NHK World would try to focus on news related to the global economy given Japan's heightened interest and strength in economic issues. Think again. There is not a single story about the Congressional Bailout, which is making headlines on all other broadcasters (even Press TV thinks this is news worthy). Nor is their a reference to the state of the global economy more broadly, something that is of heightened relevance given the continued global economic decline.

The top story listed on the homepage, and I couldn't even make this stuff up if I wanted to, is an announcement for a European conference on protectionism that will take place in March. So much for "opening a new window on the world's most exciting region, Asia" (via the press release announcing the relaunching of NHK World).

Notably lacking from the top stories is any mention of anything going on the Middle East. Nothing. News of the Israeli election results is at least among the top stories at Russia Today, AJE, Press Tv, and everywhere else I've looked. Most broadcasters also are still keeping close tabs on Gaza (like the resumption of UN aid, BBC), general Arab reactions to the Israeli elections (VOA), and the possible warming of ties between the US and Iran (Russia Today), not too mention today's attacks in Iraq (AJE). NHK World? Not interested. Even after a thorough exploration of all of the articles posted on the website (don't give me too much credit, there really aren't that many), there is little mention of the Middle East, and when there is, the stories are less informative that a Reuters newswire. There certainly is not a unique Japanese perspective offered on global events, or a window opened to Japanese culture or society. Also lacking, sans a very short story about Sudan, is NHK World's coverage of the entire African continent. This is despite today's swearing in of Zimbabwe's new Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, which even the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation found interesting. Also, the website is about as high-tech as this blog (no offense intended to Blogger).


I'm not writing this to trash NHK World, or at least that wasn't my initial intent. NHK World claims to want to compete with global news giants such as CNN and the BBC, and I was thus genuinely intrigued to see what they would bring to the broadcasting table. It may be the case that the actual broadcasting is far superior to the content on the website, though that seems to beg some larger questions of NHK's understanding of today's media environment.

"Online and in Jail"

The Committee to Protect Journalists is reporting that 45 percent of journalists that were put in jail in 2008 were web-based reporters or bloggers. Let's put this another way: you are more likely to be jailed for being a journalist if you publish your reporting via the World Wide Web than any other medium. Wow. So much for hoping that the Internet could provide a cover for those trying to report the news in countries that, well, don't exactly welcome a free and independent press.

The VOA's reporting of the findings highlights the most egregious violators: "Among the countries singled out for their hostile press environments were Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Burma, Zimbabwe and Cuba." This is especially interesting given the recent cuts in funding for American broadcasting to Russia, China's pledge to sink billions in creating English and Arabic-language international broadcasters to compete with CNN, the BBC and Al-Jazeera, Iran's recent crackdown on BBC Persian and most recently the GAO's report that found that, despite the $500 million that the US government has devoted to broadcasting radio and TV to Cuba, "Radio and TV Martí’s audience size is small, with less than 2 percent of respondents to telephone surveys since 2003 reporting that they had tuned in to Radio or TV Martí during the past week."

Thus, I'll ask again, is the Internet and its associated revolution in communication technologies actually opening up previously close societies, or is this further evidence of governments demonstrating their ability to control the flow of information despite it? 2008's crackdown on online journalism is further evidence of concern that governments are indeed winning the war over who is in control of the World Wide Web. On that note, I'm signing off!