U.S. Media Shuts Its Eyes Again as Journalist Exposes Islamic Regime
January 26, 2004
Radio Sedaye Iran
Alireza Sabouri
Near the end of 2003, London-based Channel 4 aired the controversial documentary "Forbidden Iran" presented by the international news magazine Frontline. The film includes a harrowing report from inside Iran, where, a Canadian reporter, Jane Kokan, risks her life to secretly film shocking evidence of a government sponsored reign of terror.
In "Forbidden Iran" Kokan escapes the constant surveillance of the Iranian authorities to record exclusive interviews detailing the systematic torture and execution of students opposed to the Islamic Republic regime. The documentary was graphic enough to contain some horrific scenes of stoning, eye-poking and dismembering of human limbs. This is the story which a brave Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian journalist of Iranian descent, was working on when she was captured, tortured and murdered by the Islamic Republic regime.
It was a surprise that this film was being aired in Britain, a country whose government continues to help preserve, engage and conduct vast financial negotiations with the Islamic Republic regime at the expense of 70 million Iranians who desire its obliteration. Accordingly, one could only imagine the delight of Iranians around the world when it was announced that "Forbidden Iran" was to be aired in the United States in January of 2004.
There was hope that perhaps the broadcast would also illuminate the true nature of the Islamic Republic regime for many U.S. based journalists who passively continue to play a part in the regime's agenda by depicting its dynamics as a struggle for democracy by so-called "reformists" against conservatives.
The only question that remained was which of the major U.S. based networks would be the first to air the film. Would it be NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox, or CNBC ?
The answer: None of the above, but rather your local PBS station which would air an edited, although still revealing, version of the film. Need one say more?
Following the PBS broadcast of " Forbidden Iran," there was no mention of the film on any major local or national media outlet, except for the various U.S. based Farsi language television and radio shows. There was no mention of the film either by the usual self-appointed Iran experts in the media, such as Elaine Sciolino, Robin Wright, or Christianne Amanpour. Could it be that the film contradicted years worth of reporting by these individuals, who professed that they had access to the genuine truth of events in Iran? That is something to think about.
One can recall the feeding frenzy of many distinguished U.S. networks and journalists during the 1978-1979 period of turmoil in Iran prior to the establishment of the Islamic regime. How can anyone forget the images of ABC's Peter Jennings chatting with Ayatollah Khomeini during his Air France flight into Tehran? It also brings to mind the exaggerated claims by the leaders of the Islamic revolution and a disinformation campaign against the Iranian monarchy, not to mention western media reports, that the Imperial regime was guilty of "mass murders."
These allegations were finally challenged by a former researcher at the Martyrs Foundation (Bonyad Shahid). The findings by Emad al-Din Baghi caused a stir in the Islamic Republic and were banned from publication, for they boldly question the true number of casualties (3,164 for all political armed struggles in over 16 years between 1963 and 1979) suffered by the anti-Shah movement. The reason given was that to pursue the matter would run contrary to the statements made by the late Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors who claimed that "60,000 men, women and children were martyred by the Shah's regime."
Needless to say, none of the above mentioned distinguished members and networks of the press have followed up on the inaccuracies of their prior reports. More important, however, is the fact that today, they shut their eyes and ears to the images and voices of 70 million Iranians who have experienced the tragedies of the "story" they fueled and covered in the late seventies.
In the same regard, it is ironic that today, as Iranians are about to initiate a second mass boycott in less than a year of upcoming pseudo-elections staged by the Islamic theocracy, the majority of journalists of western media are reporting on yet another imaginary struggle for democracy by so-called "reformists" against conservatives.
In fact, the January 12, 2004, edition of the Los Angeles Times featured a front page picture and article of the so-called pre-election crisis in the Islamic Republic majlis between liberal-minded reformist candidates and conservatives in the Guardian Council. This is the same Los Angeles Times which did not print a single word about "Forbidden Iran" after it was aired.
It appears that western media has generally failed in anyway to question the status quo in Iran. In other words, it has failed in recognizing what so many Iranians already know: there can be no democracy within a theocracy which, by definition, requires a marriage between religion and government.
Those who believe that "liberalism" can exist within the framework of this theocratic regime have forgotten that the first pillar of "liberalism" is the preservation of human rights, human life, liberty, and freedom. A form of government whose foundation and constitution does not respect human life, that stones women and men to death, that dismembers the hands and arms of its opponents, tortures and rapes children and takes away human dignity, liberty, and freedom should not be ever be labeled as such.
To tolerate such a government, be they so-called "reformist" or conservative, and accept it as the legitimate representative of Iran's people and culture, as has been done in the past 25 years by western governments and media, is to refute one's own values.
In March of 2003, municipal elections in Iran drew less than twelve percent of eligible voters and February 2004 is shaping up to be no different. Despite the growing media awareness of the orchestrated political soap-opera in Iran, the February elections in Iran have become a moot point for Iranians. It is simply a desperate attempt by a regime that knows that its citizens hold it in the lowest regard and want nothing more than to see it dissolved.
When the situation in Iran is at issue, it is important to remember that the Iranian regime is not embraced at all by the vast majority of citizens in Iran. Iranians have become disillusioned with the non-agenda of the so-called "reformist" camp.
The people of Iran want to see the world stand firm against the Islamic regime. What is important for the people of Iran after so many years of suffering is to see the international community, for a change, shift their focus on them rather than trying to cut a deal with the current regime or appease such a regime. They seek international intervention only through moral support and accurate reporting of their struggle to bring about a national referendum to select a secular democratic alternative completely separate from any Islamic theocracy.
As for the media, true journalists should take another look at the constitution of the Islamic Republic and ask themselves how much longer are they willing to help legitimize a regime and form of government that is not representative of its people and is riddled with prejudicial laws.
http://www.krsi.net/news/detail.asp?NewsID=545Which begs the question as to why the Islamic Revolutionary Government is so intent on gaining nuclear weapons. It would appear that they hold the Iranian populace hostage until the time when the unspeakable can be accompished. Namely the utter destruction of the Iranian people as a result of the regime's wreckless pursuit and embrace of nuclear terrorism. I pray it doesn't happen, but I'm a pessimist.