Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
velayat2011

Britain Steps Up Pressure On Presstv

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam) (bismillah)

sara20110519122241640.jpg

The British government has unleashed a new wave of pressure on Press TV in the latest example of infringement on freedom of speech.

The British government is apparently seeking to use Ofcom regulations as a pretext to impose penalties on Press TV news network and the independent London-based Press TV limited company.

It is speculated that in a politically motivated move, the British Office of Communications better known as Ofcom is pursuing a case against Press TV for broadcasting an interview with a Newsweek journalist. The telecommunications regulator is drawing on Newsweek journalist Maziar Bahari's complaint that includes claims of unfair treatment and unwarranted infringement of privacy in the making and broadcasting of a Press TV program.

While PressTV is preparing to publicize the case and its arguments against Ofcom, many analysts say Ofcom's move adds another piece to the puzzle of the British government in its bid to further limit Press TV's activities.

It appears that Press TV's policy of breaking the western monopoly on media and its critical examination of certain red lines for the western media has been the main reason behind Britain's efforts to pressure the Iranian news channel, with cases like that of Bahari serving as a means to Britain's ends.

Press TV has given full coverage to student protests in Britain, shed light on the dark undemocratic aspects of the British political structure specially the hereditary rule of the royals and laid bare London's double approach to the Middle East developments and their links with Britain's historical presence in the region.

Such subjects along with the crimes of the Israeli regime in Palestine and Lebanon are definitely among the strict red lines British media policy makers will not easily pass, a fact supported by a host of indications.

The US State Department cables published by WikiLeaks show that the British Foreign Office told the US embassy in London back in February 2010 that it was "exploring ways to limit the operations of… Press TV".

The WikiLeaks documents revealed that the authorities reconsidered their decision in the face of legal difficulties at the time, but were still looking at other ways to address the issue, including using possible new anti-Iranian sanctions to justify their measures.

This comes as having failed to find any legitimate problem with the quality or content of the programs produced by Press TV, the Wikileaks report clearly shows that the British government has got no other way but to seriously disrupt press TV activities in Britain.

Last month, the National Westminster Bank, Commercial Banking office froze Press TV Ltd's business account without any prior notice saying the accounts would be permanently closed in February 2011.

Meanwhile in an article published on January 16, 2011, British journalist and broadcaster Lauren Booth charted UK's efforts to help the US halt the company that sells documentaries and series to the Iranian channel of the same name.

Booth who is former British Premier Tony Blair's sister-in-law said the Israeli-backed pressure began when the company started its activities four years ago, as part of an effort to "use Ofcom as some kind of offshoot Hasbara body."

Booth said letters of complaint written by people linked to the Israeli Embassy in London and its supporters were sent to the broadcasting regulator whenever Press TV aired news items which shed light on the thuggery, blackmail and racism inherent in Israeli government policy.

She added as the complaint letter campaign has not been much successful, hacking of emails, Facebook accounts and mobile phones were used to cause tensions between colleagues.

The staff at Press TV Ltd have been intimidated and threatened by the members of the MKO terrorist grouping in London yet the British government has turned a blind eye to such incidents and may have even facilitated them as the MKO are continuing their threats.

PressTV website will soon publish detailed information about the recent case by Ofcom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about their FREEDOM OF SPEECH now?

Freedom of speech and freedom to spread lies via untrue 'news' stories about the UK are two different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

irishman, seeing as the uk makes out that it is a paragon of democracy and free speech, the actions they are taking against press tv don't really seem to be in accordance with those democratic values. It is not a case where, just because Iran doesn't seem to allow such openess of the press in their country, we should then play tit for tat and restrict an Iranian funded media organisation in the UK. It would be highly immature and it would mean that the British government and media governing bodies no longer have any moral integrity (if indeed they have any left...) Press tv has a right to talk about the government scandals that may be going on in the uk, just as other channels (including the BBC, channel 4 etc) do. If Britsh people wish to watch this channel and hear what they have to say, then those British citizens absolutely should have a right to do so. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

irishman, seeing as the uk makes out that it is a paragon of democracy and free speech, the actions they are taking against press tv don't really seem to be in accordance with those democratic values. It is not a case where, just because Iran doesn't seem to allow such openess of the press in their country, we should then play tit for tat and restrict an Iranian funded media organisation in the UK. It would be highly immature and it would mean that the British government and media governing bodies no longer have any moral integrity (if indeed they have any left...) Press tv has a right to talk about the government scandals that may be going on in the uk, just as other channels (including the BBC, channel 4 etc) do. If Britsh people wish to watch this channel and hear what they have to say, then those British citizens absolutely should have a right to do so. ^_^

Britain allowed PressTV to have an office in the UK, and allowed PressTV reporters to work in the UK, and for PressTV to be be received via a normal Sky subscription, or via FreeSat. That is Freedom of Speech, but Freedom of Speech has limits, as it has in all countries. If you abuse those limits by constantly making up false news stories about the UK, and broadcast those false stories, and not issue apologies and corrections when found out, or if you constantly only allows one side to be represented in debates on issues, then you are abusing such rules and will be rightly reported. Which is far better than office being ransacked and off to a kangaroo court to be charged with crimes against God.

Edited by Irishman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah' date=' I'm sure every country would allow another country to open a TV news office in its country, whole sole purpose seems to be to spread false news and lies about that country.[/quote']

Well, they allow the B* Broadcasting Channel to continue operations so...

Edited by Haji 2003
Rude language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they allow the Bullsh*t Broadcasting Channel to continue operations so...

Which is far more newsworthy than the Sana ( Assad ***** ) News Agency in Syria.

Edited by Haji 2003
Reciprocal Rude language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just what "false news" has PressTV reported about Britain?

One recent example then.

http://previous.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=174093&sectionid=351021807

Another ( Another implying another senior British politician ) senior (senior may be open to interpretation, but can you really call an unelected candidate from a small right wing party a 'senior' politician? ) British politician has resorted to desecrating Muslims' holy book, the Qur'an, in his bid to win more support from among members of his party.

So titumir, tell me who was the other 'senior' British politician who desecrated the Qur'an?

Making accusations of something as sensitive to Muslims as burning the Qur'an that can raise such anger and hatred ( many protests and deaths in countries can occur from such acts ) when these claims ( who was the other one? ) and the way it was worded is nothing short of lies and misrepresentation of a story about Britain.

Edited by Irishman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignorant! You were not talking about 'newsworthy' or 'not newsworthy' agency, you were discussing on 'allowing' or 'not allowing' the News agencies in different countries. Besides, who the heck are you to decide which one is trustworthy and which is not?

Yeah, and he asked why the B(British)BC is allowed to operate in the UK. Well BBC is a British news agency operating in Britain, its not another countries news agency operating in Britain. You will find the BBC asks a lot more questions of its politicians and PM than the Assad B* Sana does!!

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and he asked why the B(British)BC is allowed to operate in the UK. Well BBC is a British news agency operating in Britain, its not another countries news agency operating in Britain. You will find the BBC asks a lot more questions of its politicians and PM than the Assad B*tt Licking Sana does!!

Really? I thought he questioned you that, Syrians allow British B* Cancer to operate in Syria while they are bulshhting and why not it is the same for other foreign agencies to operate in Britain :)

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irishman

If the Press is in breach of regulatory rules of Ofcom - and we have yet to see what precisely are those breaches - then it should be treated like any other media out operating in the UK. It should be adequately penalised. But what can not be done is to punish a media outlet for not agreeing to the mainstream media in that country, whether or not that mainstream media is in line with their government.

Depending on one's view, their "lies" and "false" news cannot be countered by putting restrictions on the channel but by further propaganda by those outlets and activists who do not agree to Press's version of the story.

For instance the example you gave about certain right wing unelected UK politician being called "senior" may well be an example of the skewed and biased reporting of the Press but this is not breaching the regulations. Every news channel has its views. If we decide on the freedom of an outlet based on our assessment of reality than Fox and its ilk are first to go. They are party to spreading lies about a number of things in the Middle East; Iraq war and Iran included. So what do we do if they are banned in Iran? Condemn? If yes, then I agree. If so, then we also have to condemn British authorities for restricting Press.

You and me are well aware of the credibility and fairness (or lack thereof) of Press. But this appears to me just a plain attempt to silence a channel because "it is too much". Wiki-leaks documents assert that British authorities were looking to restrict Press anyway. Not because it is in breach of Ofcom regulations but for being a propaganda outlet for Iran.

Do not forget what the BBC itself went through under the directorship of Greg Dyke. It was attacked by the Blair government and made to cave in because it showed a surprising degree of independence to question the Iraq War. It used to be a great outlet but after Dyke, it turned into the mouthpiece of the Blair-Brown government.

In a democracy which values the freedom of speech highly this attack on Press, if it is politically motivated, shouldn't be tolerated, whether or not one agrees with Press.

Let us call a spade a spade. Let us not show partisanship when the matter requires much more insight.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I thought he questioned you that, Syrians allow British Bllshtting Cancer to operate in Syria while they are bulshhting and why not it is the same for other foreign agencies to operate in Britain :)

Have the BBC got an office in Syria?. You want to provide information about that office. Are BBC Journalists currently allowed in Syria to travel around and report and film the current protests?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the BBC got an office in Syria?. You want to provide information about that office. Are BBC Journalists currently allowed in Syria to travel around and report and film the current protests?

To operate they do not have to have offices... it is obvious... but if BBC is banned, you provide the evidence, date and reason where Syria announced and banned BBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To operate they do not have to have offices...

By operate you mean broadcast in Syria?

it is obvious... but if BBC is banned, you provide the evidence, date and reason where Syria announced and banned BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9470481.stm

Western journalists are currently banned from Syria, but many locals are going to great lengths to show their uprising to the world, and the violent backlash they are encountering.

I should say first of all that the BBC is covering Syria from Lebanon, Reuters is reporting from Jordan and the Associated Press from Cyprus.

The Syrian government has thrown out virtually all the foreign correspondents based in Damascus and will not let any new ones in.

Irishman

If the Press is in breach of regulatory rules of Ofcom - and we have yet to see what precisely are those breaches - then it should be treated like any other media out operating in the UK. It should be adequately penalised. But what can not be done is to punish a media outlet for not agreeing to the mainstream media in that country, whether or not that mainstream media is in line with their government.

Hi Marbles

Which it has been so far, but if its constantly breaching rules, it has been found guilty before, then it should get a final warning, as if its no longer being a news source, but a propaganda machine, whats the point in keeping it going?

Depending on one's view, their "lies" and "false" news cannot be countered by putting restrictions on the channel but by further propaganda by those outlets and activists who do not agree to Press's version of the story.

I doubt other news channels want to spend their time just correcting PressTV lies, when their job is to report news.

For instance the example you gave about certain right wing unelected UK politician being called "senior" may well be an example of the skewed and biased reporting of the Press but this is not breaching the regulations. Every news channel has its views. If we decide on the freedom of an outlet based on our assessment of reality than Fox and its ilk are first to go. They are party to spreading lies about a number of things in the Middle East; Iraq war and Iran included. So what do we do if they are banned in Iran? Condemn? If yes, then I agree. If so, then we also have to condemn British authorities for restricting Press.

The main lie was the 'Another senior.. ' implying a senior British politician has done so previously. If so, PressTV should of named him or her. It did not, because no senior British politician has.

You and me are well aware of the credibility and fairness (or lack thereof) of Press. But this appears to me just a plain attempt to silence a channel because "it is too much". Wiki-leaks documents assert that British authorities were looking to restrict Press anyway. Not because it is in breach of Ofcom regulations but for being a propaganda outlet for Iran.

Question is why let a 'propaganda outlet for Iran' as opposed to a valid news company operate in your country?

In a democracy which values the freedom of speech highly this attack on Press, if it is politically motivated, shouldn't be tolerated, whether or not one agrees with Press.

Let us call a spade a spade. Let us not show partisanship when the matter requires much more insight.

Freedom of Speech has limits, many UK media outlets broadcast news and uncover stories that the government would rather not they had found out, but blatant lies and spreading mischief is another matter.

Edited by Irishman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Press( Propaganda )TV now thinks it can judge Irish opinion. Unfortunately for Press( Propaganda )TV, it was yet again another massive fail!!

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/180718.html

Most Irish consider Elizabeth Windsor's, the English Queen, visit to the Republic of Ireland as both an insult and an occasion for protest.

What really happened. Yeah, a hundred or so kids took the opportunity to throw a few firecrackers at the police one day, but that was about as much protest as there was in a country of 4.5 million people.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0520/breaking3.html

However, the success of the visit and the warm welcome she has received appears to have prompted an easing of the security arrangements.

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/queen-tells-taoiseach-of-her-desire-to-return-to-ireland-505819.html

The Queen was loudly cheered by hundreds of schoolchildren today as she arrived in Cork city on the final part of her momentous trip to Ireland.

As she walked the short distance from her motorcade to the English Market, she stopped and turned to the crowds who lined streets.

The very public welcome in the heart of the “Rebel County” was the first time the Queen has been so close to well-wishers on this trip.

Traders and staff inside the renowned market also applauded as the Queen inspected butchers’ counters packed with meat, as well as fish and other stalls run by grocers.

Edited by Irishman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech and freedom to spread lies via untrue 'news' stories about the UK are two different things.

Yes when west does it then it is "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" and when muslim countries do this then it is "FREEDOM OF SPREADING LIES". Why Americans and Westerns have double standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes when west does it then it is "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" and when muslim countries do this then it is "FREEDOM OF SPREADING LIES". Why Americans and Westerns have double standards?

Maybe you should ask why Iran not lets the BBC have offices in Tehran and BBC reporters to move around freely, when it expects the UK to let it do exactly that. Why the double standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Western journalists are currently banned from Syria, but many locals are going to great lengths to show their uprising to the world, and the violent backlash they are encountering.

Yea, today is different... Syria is at war with terrorists and their backers... people are killed... and the western journalists are backing terrorists.. I meant in normal situation if any of the 'agencies' like BBC was specefically banned or pressured the way PressTv is in Britain. If things will go wrong in British like wars against rebels or terrorists, and PressTv starts BS and support terrorists then Britain has every right to ban or kick its journalists from the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Marbles

Which it has been so far, but if its constantly breaching rules, it has been found guilty before, then it should get a final warning, as if its no longer being a news source, but a propaganda machine, whats the point in keeping it going?

Question is why let a 'propaganda outlet for Iran' as opposed to a valid news company operate in your country?

Freedom of Speech has limits, many UK media outlets broadcast news and uncover stories that the government would rather not they had found out, but blatant lies and spreading mischief is another matter.

This is the whole point. Individuals, groups or even the government in power cannot take the job to define which is a valid news source and which is base propaganda. It is for the viewers to make their mind about news outlets.

Every news outlet and every person employed by that outlet has different takes on different matters. It is not possible that every section of the society would agree with any kind of outlet. Unless they are in clear breach of rules, they can't be banned because some sections of the society do not like it. That's the whole thing.

As I said earlier, I would like to see the clear breach of regulations by the Press. If they are guilty, I like to see them penalised. But the content of news of an outlet and their opinions of world events has no relevance to this case.

If the Western countries are going to start banning channels because they are mouthpieces of foreign countries than they have no right to take the moral ground and condemn those countries where freedom of speech is crippled.

I know of the limits of freedom of speech. For example inciting hatred and violence, which technically also comes under (unlimited) freedom of speech, can't be given to the trouble makers. So yes, in contrast to the theory of J.S. Mill, the freedom of speech in the West today is limited, but I don't see this case as being an example of limited freedom of speech. It appears to be government repression because somewhere out there is challenging the official power narrative. Rightly or wrongly, it depends entirely one's point of view, which is irrelevant here.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should ask why Iran not lets the BBC have offices in Tehran and BBC reporters to move around freely, when it expects the UK to let it do exactly that. Why the double standards?

is freedom of speech a guaranteed right in the Islamic Republic? is it a guaranteed right in the UK? is PressTV the only "news" outlet who could be considered a propaganda machine?

it is the UK who is applying the double standards in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is speculated that in a politically motivated move, the British Office of Communications, better known as Ofcom, is pursuing a case against Press TV for broadcasting an interview with a Newsweek journalist. The telecommunications regulator is drawing on Newsweek journalist Maziar Bahari's complaint that includes claims of unfair treatment and unwarranted infringement of privacy in the making and broadcasting of a Press TV program.

Don't think there's so much of a cause for concern. The worse case scenario is that if convicted on charges in a court of law, PressTV can get away with an apology and withdrawal of the said program

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think there's so much of a cause for concern. The worse case scenario is that if convicted on charges in a court of law, PressTV can get away with an apology and withdrawal of the said program

It seems to be that PressTV send its reporters to a Tehran prison where Maziar Bahari was held for 118 days to record a 'confession' by him and then they broadcast this 'confession'. A bit late to withdraw the program now that they aired it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ofcom-investigates-irans-press-tv-over-interview-1996131.html

The case is being closely watched by human rights activists. Index on Censorship campaigner, Jo Glanville says any respectable journalist should refuse to work for the channel. “The way they behaved by going into the prison in that way and essentially colluding with the torture and illegal detention of a journalist that should finish their reputation once and for all in this country.

Well said Jo Glanville!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to be that PressTV send its reporters to a Tehran prison where Maziar Bahari was held for 118 days to record a 'confession' by him and then they broadcast this 'confession'. A bit late to withdraw the program now that they aired it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ofcom-investigates-irans-press-tv-over-interview-1996131.html

The case is being closely watched by human rights activists. Index on Censorship campaigner, Jo Glanville says any respectable journalist should refuse to work for the channel. “The way they behaved by going into the prison in that way and essentially colluding with the torture and illegal detention of a journalist that should finish their reputation once and for all in this country.

Well said Jo Glanville!!

''The way some western media outlets behave, believing and reporting what a bunch of exiled Iranians [who are known for lying] say, should finish off their reputation once and for all.'' Shiasoldier786

Anyways, refer to brother Haji's new topic. Its about how well the Al Jazeera reporter Dorothy Parvaz, who had previously been known to be critical of Iran, was treated in the Evin prison in Iran. This prison is what the western media refers to as the 'most notorious' in Iran, and Dorothy seemed to have had a decent time there. :lol: I highly doubt it if 'The Independent' will report this and apologize for spreading misinformation against Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam) (bismillah)

sara20110519122241640.jpg

The British government has unleashed a new wave of pressure on Press TV in the latest example of infringement on freedom of speech.

The British government is apparently seeking to use Ofcom regulations as a pretext to impose penalties on Press TV news network and the independent London-based Press TV limited company.

It is speculated that in a politically motivated move, the British Office of Communications better known as Ofcom is pursuing a case against Press TV for broadcasting an interview with a Newsweek journalist. The telecommunications regulator is drawing on Newsweek journalist Maziar Bahari's complaint that includes claims of unfair treatment and unwarranted infringement of privacy in the making and broadcasting of a Press TV program.

While PressTV is preparing to publicize the case and its arguments against Ofcom, many analysts say Ofcom's move adds another piece to the puzzle of the British government in its bid to further limit Press TV's activities.

It appears that Press TV's policy of breaking the western monopoly on media and its critical examination of certain red lines for the western media has been the main reason behind Britain's efforts to pressure the Iranian news channel, with cases like that of Bahari serving as a means to Britain's ends.

Press TV has given full coverage to student protests in Britain, shed light on the dark undemocratic aspects of the British political structure specially the hereditary rule of the royals and laid bare London's double approach to the Middle East developments and their links with Britain's historical presence in the region.

Such subjects along with the crimes of the Israeli regime in Palestine and Lebanon are definitely among the strict red lines British media policy makers will not easily pass, a fact supported by a host of indications.

The US State Department cables published by WikiLeaks show that the British Foreign Office told the US embassy in London back in February 2010 that it was "exploring ways to limit the operations of… Press TV".

The WikiLeaks documents revealed that the authorities reconsidered their decision in the face of legal difficulties at the time, but were still looking at other ways to address the issue, including using possible new anti-Iranian sanctions to justify their measures.

This comes as having failed to find any legitimate problem with the quality or content of the programs produced by Press TV, the Wikileaks report clearly shows that the British government has got no other way but to seriously disrupt press TV activities in Britain.

Last month, the National Westminster Bank, Commercial Banking office froze Press TV Ltd's business account without any prior notice saying the accounts would be permanently closed in February 2011.

Meanwhile in an article published on January 16, 2011, British journalist and broadcaster Lauren Booth charted UK's efforts to help the US halt the company that sells documentaries and series to the Iranian channel of the same name.

Booth who is former British Premier Tony Blair's sister-in-law said the Israeli-backed pressure began when the company started its activities four years ago, as part of an effort to "use Ofcom as some kind of offshoot Hasbara body."

Booth said letters of complaint written by people linked to the Israeli Embassy in London and its supporters were sent to the broadcasting regulator whenever Press TV aired news items which shed light on the thuggery, blackmail and racism inherent in Israeli government policy.

She added as the complaint letter campaign has not been much successful, hacking of emails, Facebook accounts and mobile phones were used to cause tensions between colleagues.

The staff at Press TV Ltd have been intimidated and threatened by the members of the MKO terrorist grouping in London yet the British government has turned a blind eye to such incidents and may have even facilitated them as the MKO are continuing their threats.

PressTV website will soon publish detailed information about the recent case by Ofcom.

I like how you use a press tv article to defend press tv :P

I was looking through their archives, has anyone noticed that in their most recent 20-30 US headlines, every single one of them makes it sound like its the end of days for america? After reading their articles i would expect fire and brimstone when i look out my window :P.

This is like the iranian equivalent of fox news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irishman,

CNN are spreading the truth you know :!!!:

I pity you

I believe there should be protests all around the world infront the British embassies against this act.

Edited by RoAcHy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''The way some western media outlets behave, believing and reporting what a bunch of exiled Iranians [who are known for lying] say, should finish off their reputation once and for all.'' Shiasoldier786

Strange that anybody who ever tells bad new about Iran is always a lying exiled Iranian.

Anyways, refer to brother Haji's new topic. Its about how well the Al Jazeera reporter Dorothy Parvaz, who had previously been known to be critical of Iran, was treated in the Evin prison in Iran. This prison is what the western media refers to as the 'most notorious' in Iran, and Dorothy seemed to have had a decent time there. :lol: I highly doubt it if 'The Independent' will report this and apologize for spreading misinformation against Iran.

So one woman being treated well means every person is always treated well?. And this women is not lying this time?. If you think so, then in the same article where she does not lie about her treatment in an Iranian prison, she has lied about what she has seen and what happened in a Syrian prison?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stefan

is freedom of speech a guaranteed right in the Islamic Republic? is it a guaranteed right in the UK?

Guess what, unlimited freedom of speech is not guaranteed by the UK laws, either ( the UK doesn't have a constitution).

it is the UK who is applying the double standards in this case.

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guilty!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/23/iran-press-tv-maziar-bahari

Iran's Press TV censured for interview with arrested journalist

Ofcom says interview with Maziar Bahari that aired in the UK breached broadcasting rules

Ofcom has ruled that Iran's state-run Press TV is responsible for a serious breach of UK broadcasting rules and could face a fine for airing an interview with Maziar Bahari, the Newsweek journalist arrested covering the Iranian presidential election in 2009, that was obtained by force while he was held in a Tehran jail.

In July 2009 Press TV, which has a bureau in west London, aired what it said was an interview with Bahari following his arrest in the previous month, days after he had filed a report to Channel 4 News and Newsweek about an attack in Tehran during a post-election demonstration.

The UK media regulator has been investigating the complaint by Bahari, who spent 118 days in jail, since last summer.

In its ruling on the complaint published on Monday, Ofcom said it regards the breaches to be of a "serious nature" and is now considering if the case "warrants the imposition of a sanction''.

Bahari lodged a complaint with Ofcom in December 2009 which said the "interview" had been made "under duress", after he was told by an interrogator that he was suspected of espionage and could face the death penalty unless he made a "televised statement about the role of the western media in the post-presidential election demonstrations".

He was interviewed by three Iranian broadcasters, including Press TV, reading answers pre-prepared by his captors from a script. The footage from the "press conference" was aired in the UK by Press TV.

"Mr Bahari said that it would have been clear to all the broadcasters that he was giving the interview under duress," according to Ofcom's 10-page ruling.

Simons, Muirhead & Burton, the legal firm that represented Bahari, complained to Ofcom that the he was "treated unfairly and that his privacy was unwarrantably infringed in the making and broadcast of the programme". The complaint also said Press TV did not seek Bahari's permission to film and air the interview.

Press TV denied the interview was biased, saying Bahari did not "dispute the truth and accuracy" of the extract of the interview it broadcast, so it made "no logical sense" to claim it required his consent.

The broadcaster also said its policy was not to accept "scripted" interview questions from any third party or to "put pressure on an individual to give an interview or continue recording if an individual requested the recording to stop".

In summary Ofcom said Press TV's presentation of Bahari was unfair because it "omitted material facts and was placed in a context in which inferences adverse to Mr Bahari could be drawn".

The media regulator also said that Press TV failed to get his consent and this "contributed to the overall unfairness to Mr Bahari in the item broadcast".

Ofcom added that filming and broadcasting the interview without consent "while he was in a sensitive situation and vulnerable state was an unwarranted infringement of Mr Bahari's privacy".

Edited by Irishman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stefan

Press TV denied the interview was biased, saying Bahari did not "dispute the truth and accuracy" of the extract of the interview it broadcast

Press TV = bloody jerks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...