Punishing the BBC

On September 17, 2011, BBC Persian service television aired a documentary called Khat va Neshane Rahbar (Signals and Gestures of the Leader).

This documentary film is about the personal and political life of Iran’s supreme leader seyed Ali Khamenei who was born in the city of Mashhad. The first part of the film covers Khamenei’s birth and youth, and then talks about his interest in poetry, literature and music. It then portrays his step by step advance after the victory of the Islamic revolution in 1979 which he accomplished with the help of others such as Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Beheshti. It views the 8-year war between Iran and Iraq as the event that brought him close to the military. It refers to individuals and authorities close to him and trusted by him inside his household. The documentary then illustrates how he became the leader and finally ends with his oppressive approach towards the Green Movement, the leaders of the movement, and compares these with his other suppressive measures against his critics including the late ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri.

Regardless of the positive and negative comments that have been made about the details and quality of this documentary, it must be said that the producers of the film had made every effort to ensure that this presentation, like all other BBC films, was respectful and professional, and did not use the kind of accusatory language that has been used by some individuals and groups that oppose the Islamic republic of Iran in depicting ayatollah Khamenei. It strove to use reliable and verifiable information about him, his family and his policies as much as possible.

And even though this documentary was clearly not at par with other writings or films of BBC Persian service based on its traditional standards of neutrality as defined by itself, and in some sections unprecedentedly called ayatollah Khamenei an oppressive dictator, it must be noted that these terms are part of the normal lexicon of political science in describing types of governments and rulers. And while those individuals who receive such labels do not enjoy the respect of world public opinion, only those who support dictators and despots generally claim that the terms are disrespectful.

In no part of the various sections of this BBC film is there any disrespect or verbal insult against the leader of the Islamic republic, his family members or other senior authorities of the Islamic republic of Iran.

No media or journalist that claims to be professional allows the use of slander or the fictitious destruction of a personality or an entity. This legal and ethical principle of journalism and media work is strictly respected and followed in journalism and media activities by the professional international media so that their readers and viewers stay aware that they are not dealing with a political institution whose purpose is the destruction and ultimately elimination of a specific political movement or group through the media.

But the response to this documentary by the official media of the Islamic republic of Iran and the media that supports it has been unusually harsh through the use of verbal abuse and unfortunately slanderous and shameful language.

Even if we overlook the arrest of a large group of people on charges of working with the BBC and the denials of such a cooperation by the executives of the BBC, the media of the Islamic republic that supports the leader has in recent weeks been unfortunately filled with slanderous reports and articles on the personnel of the various sections of BBC Persian service.

The endless, widespread and un-controlled slanderous actions, the airing of sexual, religious, political and other accusations, and the use of shameless language for a group of reporters and journalists whose only crime is their dedication to honest and impartial dissemination of news, and the extensive psychological pressure, summons of family members of BBC staff in Iran to security agencies and threats against them, telephone calls to them, the use of curse words and shameless language against them on live television broadcasts, and many other similar actions, are all indicative of the unprecedented response of the authorities of the Islamic republic of Iran to a documentary, which clearly come from a sick mind.

How do the authorities of the Islamic republic whose claims of being righteous, moral and ethical have turned everybody’s ears deaf allow the media under their control to so shamelessly break into the private lives of people and strive to damage the dignity and respect of a group of reporters and journalists and their families?

And how is it that the listeners and viewers of these media who claim to be followers of the ways and values of the Basijis and worshipers of God (hizbullahis), instead of protesting to the operators of this media, add more insults to the already shameless and voluminous smear by sending phone messages or commenting on the published brazen news and reports on Internet sites.

Is the Islamic republic with such vast media resources and billion-Toman propaganda budgets really incapable of presenting a reasonable and professional response to a documentary film it dislikes? Is it that fearful of the presentation of the different aspects of the life of its leader to the public that instead of responding in a normal media and political manner it feels it has to resort to such vengeful and unethical actions?

Even if the perpetrators and supporters of these vengeful and shameful acts do not believe in human ethics and morals because they have Western origins, it would be useful for them to take a look at the ethical principles advocated in Islam, the religion to which they claim obedience and then let their conscience be the judge as to whether what they have been doing to other human beings has a place in their faith or not.

By producing documentaries and non-documentary projects (even as defined by the Islamic republic of Iran itself), the authorities of Iran who are engaged in media and political activities can challenge the programs of international networks. In fact, this is something that they have been doing more or less in the last 32 years.

But the extent of security pressure on families and the degrees of slander and insults going on now is something that is not defensible in any faith or ideology. The continuation of such practices only demonstrates the greater disrepute of their sources.