| Topic: | Iran International isn't independent | |
| Posted by: | Jeremy Parkinson | |
| Date/Time: | 30/11/22 11:28:00 |
Your confidence that the station is not a Saudi government mouthpiece is somewhat undermined by the refusal of the company that owns it – Volant Media to deny it. The station carries no advertising and has an operating budget of around $50 million a year and attracted staff by paying above market rates. Dr Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi, a leading British-based academic on the Middle East said at the time Iran International was set up, “it appears that Iran International is part and parcel of the Saudi crown prince’s decision to take a more aggressive posture against Iran, emboldened, no doubt, by the US President Donald Trump administration.” The Guardian has reported that a source has told it that it is a pet project of Prince Mohammed bin Salman (no friend of journalists!). The Guardian has reported that Saud al-Qahtani, who oversaw the press for the Crown Prince and was removed from office for his involvement in the Khashoggi affair, provided the initial funding for setting up Volant Media which ultimately came from the Saudi Royal Court. Although the true ownership of Volant Media is hidden behind a network of shell companies, one of the directors is Adel Abdulkarim, a Saudi national who is a close associate of Abdulrahman al-Rashed who is the former manager of Saudi-owned news channel Al Arabiya. There is no doubt that many of the people working at Iran International are genuine members of the Iranian diaspora and opposed to the regime. Maybe they are willing to turn a blind eye to the Saudi ownership of the station or maybe they reckon ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ and are prepared to supp with the devil. However, information does not need to be untrue to count as propaganda. Your notion that the staff working there regard themless as independent is very naive. They know the consequences of any criticism of their Saudi paymasters. The notion that this is a media adhering to generally recognised standards of journalistic objectivity is not accurate. For instance, take the report on yesterday’s World Cup match which states, “The Iranian national soccer team once again sang along with the Islamic Republic’s anthem before the match against the US team, a gesture that will further discredit them in the eyes of Iranians opposed to the ruling theocracy.” This is clearly a very biased take on what happened – talk to any Iranian living in this country and they will acknowledge the pressures put on their sports people and how they still are proud of them even when they are forced to make compromises to the regime. The rest of the coverage is undiluted negative coverage of the regime. That the Islamic Republic deserves unfavourable but objective reporting is undeniable, but Iran International goes beyond this to the extent that it is clearly propaganda. You are not wrong that withdrawing the station’s licence would, on the surface, have the appearance of giving in to terrorism and it is unlikely to happen anyway. What should have been in place beforehand was a licensing regime that didn’t allow media to be set up in this country by one regime with the intention of changing the government in a third country. From what you say Iran International may be on its way out of the business park, which will be warmly welcomed by most people working there. The termination of the lease possibly may be a sign of better relations between China and Iran as the former is effectively the landlord of Iran International. Whatever contract has been signed with a new landlord in Park Royal, force majeure would surely apply, so the Iran International problem for the area may solve itself, simply because there is no viable base for its operation. |