Living between the red lines
Living between the red lines
By: Kasra Nuri
To say or not to say; to write or not to write; to report or to archive; these are the two poles defined methodically by various media systems. They are created with great precision in line with characteristics of the society for which they were designed. The boundary between these two poles could be the frightening zone we call the “red linesâ€.
According to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran freedom of speech is one of people’s undeniable rights. However, as with other societies, there are also legal musts and must nots inherent in that right. However, our story begins from where those who weild power determined the limits of these boundaries based on their own requirements and capability. The interesting point is that sometimes they don’t even think it necessary to announce that these boundaries have been expanded. The innocent journalists who unknowingly step over these limits will have to pay a heavy price for not guessing them.
The problem became more acute three years ago when Iran’s political structure became homogeneous. Since then Iran’s political structure seems to have become the tool in the hands of a single political school of thought. This is a perverse school of thought which many believe relies on an ideology at loggerheads with the free flow of information. It seems not even to care whether it respects such criteria. “Agents of foreignersâ€, “instigators of colour revolutionsâ€, “regime over-throwersâ€, etc are only some of the labels that this school of thought uses to describe critical journalists.
During the eight-year term of Ahmad Khatami’s government — even though many publications were banned by the Judiciary — the government could be said to have generally supported freedom of the press, albeit with its own irregular red lines. Some sections of the ruling establishment issued permits for the publication of selected new publications provided other publications pertaining to their critics were closed down. Journalists and writers could take advantage of the ideological vacuum which existed between the various dominant groups. That became the print media’s breathing space.
However, with the dominant homogenous nature of the ruling system today, that breathing space has gone. If at some stage the press were told what not to write, today they are told what to write. This is because the ruling establishment believes that the world has to hear one single united voice from Iran.
There is a famous tale in Persian history according to which a ruler asked his critic to stop stepping on his tail. The critic responded by asking the ruler “how long is your tail so I know where to stop?†The problem in today’s media circles in Iran is in knowing that tail length of some of those in power.
I believe that in order for us to overcome this period we need to take account of sociological factors. In many societies, especially in those where democracy is either going through a transition or has not become institutionalized, journalists have often found themselves surrounded by these multi-dimensional red lines. Sometimes journalists have stepped over these lines either unknowingly or due to the fact that the boundaries and limits of these red lines were unclear. In many cases they have either faced the terrible consequences, or resorted to self-censorship, dire passivism, or conservatism. In effect it seems they have committed suicide due to fear. There is no doubt that opting for any of these options will mark the end of the journalists’ professional life. They will have to accept that either those in power will put an end to their activities or alternatively their readers will turn out their lucky star by ignoring what they write. But is there any other option for them?
As a journalist who has 17 years of experience in this society, I have been exposed to both options at various moments of my career. However, I can see that now we are experiencing a third option and by relying on this option we can practise journalism affectively in a society which is going through transition. This option, I need to stress, has been created only after paying a high price by many of those involved in the media in Iran: the price has included harassment, banning of numerous publications, imprisonment of a number of journalists, acute depression suffered by many writers and intellectuals and so on. Proposing this option should not imply that I am saying we are benefiting from conditions conducive to free expression of opinion. On the contrary, I will talk about the methods we have found — through trial and error — to continue our profession as journalists in order to survive. This survival kit is based on coming to terms with conditions about which we have little choice. The concern is that if we do not attempt to put those experiences behind us, we may never be able to overcome our obstacles and fulfil our most important duty towards society.
1)The need for understanding the sources of freedom
For most of us, a red line has always been a reminder of political restrictions and the ruling system’s overwhelming power to suppress and eliminate intellectuals and the elite. This viewpoint, which is actually the dominant approach in our society, believes that the lack of freedom is a result of the ruling system’s desire and will. Dogmatism and excessive resilience to interweave freedom with the ruling system’s will arises from a school of though which views freedom as a political means and an element which could be discarded.
We have come to realize that it is an historic and ideological error to think that we should seek freedom, and the eradication of the red lines set by the ruling power, only in the political arena created for us. It is true that freedom is a social phenomenon whose seeds have to be sown in society and harvested in the political sphere. However, currently, after long contemplation, we have come to realize that to eradicate the red lines we need to replace the mechanical view of “freedom†with a dynamic interpretation of freedom.
2) The need for understanding indigenous living conditions
Upholding journalism as a profession, as currently practised in Iran, has been achieved through the invaluable experiences of recent years. Journalists have clearly understood they cannot continue their professional activities without considering their own living conditions. Real experience of journalism is crucial in any analysis of theories of journalism. Conversely, experience should be analysed based on a hypothesis. Otherwise it could be argued that experience is incomplete and vague if it does not allow a generation to collect and pass on to future generations the lessons it has learned.
In order to describe the current situation it is necessary to make note of two points. First: the Journalists’ extreme revolutionary approach and second: the Iranian government’s intolerance. The Fourth Pillar of democracy had no choice in Iran but to replace political parties. As such it had to take up a political stance in its journalism. As such it became subject to a treatment usually designed for opposition parties. As a result, under current circumstances one cannot expect journalism be proficient. Added to these elements, the track record of Iranian governments was to resort to undemocratic and unilateral policies towards undesirable melodies. They have consistently shown a firm reactions to voices which they deem to be out of place. It is a bitter reality that we live in a society where seeds of dictatorship grow stronger than freedom. We have come to realize that most of the red lines are in fact the restrictions which our social structure imposes on us. Journalists have found with bitter experience that society has not supported them at the zero hour.
Resorting to extremism and falling victim to the narrow boundaries of their thoughts — without making them compatible with the nature and features of society — resulted in these extreme thoughts either being totally rejected by society or in their failing to become institutionalized. The red lines thus connected to the social structure will ultimately either create the necessary excuses by those in power for the suppression of journalists, or they will provided the ruling system with an excuse to legitimize its restrictions.
As a result, considering this invaluable experience, journalism in Iran has learned that it has to redefine its activities and present a more detailed picture of its mission and capabilities. Moreover, since newspaper circulation in Iran is a long way behind international standards, Iranian journalism has learnt to lessen its delusions about its impact on society. It has, thus, worked out a more precise understanding of the ruling system’s potential power and has adopted a more rational approach, better suited for dealing with the hazards of new conditions.
3)Explanatory journalism
Another feature of this profession in Iran today is that it has understood that for a journalist to survive, he/she has to carry out journalistic activities rather than political activities. During previous years, a deep debate took place in Iran between media managers — especially from the media which were not affiliated to any part of the ruling system — on whether the media should be at the service of the media or at the service of politics? A more important question could be what is the relationship between ideology and journalism?
This is clearly outside the brief boundaries of this paper. However I can assure all that today a huge part of Iran’s journalism today deals with peaceful co-existence, defence of peace, respect for various viewpoints, avoiding controversy and taking account of various styles of living. Adopting such an approach, which seems to lack ideological idealism, shows that Iranian journalists are gradually realizing that they don’t have a duty to change society. They now focus on reflecting the social realities. We have realized that we should not advocate extremism and radical behaviour. We are not rebels. We are reformists and there is no room for the spread of radicalism in our behaviour. This is because extremism in this sphere will only result in radical reactions by those in power and the tightening of the ring surrounding us with the use of the red lines.
4) Determining the extent of the ideals
Another aspect of journalism in Iran over the past few years has been that journalists are trying to make their ideals more compatible with social realities and potentials. We have accepted the fact that in societies with a long history of dictatorship, it is impossible to walk a down a 100-year path in a short space of four to five years. The reality of conditions has taught us that in order to create change in society we have to rationally consider the elements of time and cultural and social limitations. We have understood that creating social change is a time-consuming and long process which will not be materialized unless we are patient and steadfast. This is because if we accept that democracy is synonymous with a condition in which our interests are dependant on accepting others’ interests if we accept this in our social interactions, then political hegemony will be weakened as a result. Gradually all equations will become diverse and we will witness an increase in freedom. Thus it will become possible to limit or fully eradicate the red lines.
5) Interaction with the ruling system
My experience as a journalist during recent years in Iran has taught me that in this meeting I should refer to at least part of the lessons Iranian journalism has learned. Many Iranian journalists have realized that even though in a number of cases they may have the same view as the politicians, they can never be united with them. In comparison to politicians, the journalists’ ladder is very short. Journalists have always been the prime victims of political storms in Iran.
This is a bitter but realistic confession. Politicians have abandoned Iranian journalists at the zero hour. Journalists have become more cautious as a result and have trusted politicians less. Alongside the above mentioned factors, there has developed an unrecorded common feeling between journalists and politicians. The former has put an end to its unnecessary stubbornness and the latter is trying to stop harassing journalists. This is because both sides have realized that the price they will have to pay will outweigh the benefits of such undefined behaviour.
6) Writing-style changes and domain diversity
There is a famous and relatively outdated sentence which has been used to describe some Iranian print media and that is that some newspapers act like artillery. A seasoned politician once described the style of a certain newspaper as “one that grabbed you by the neckâ€. This observation shows that these days there is a desire to go from subjective writing toward objective writing. Today, journalism in Iran simply narrates rather than analysing the event. Subjectivity is a final stage which Iranian journalists have had to leave behind. They have understood that they do not have the right to sit in judgement over and above their audiences.
Conclusions
To summarise, we could say that journalism in Iran has reached a certain conclusion based on a combination of experience and logic. What is important is to know what the motive for being a journalist is while rejecting any form of extremism or passivism in approach. Coping with official power and navigating red lines has brought a certain level of maturity in the approach of Iranian journalists. Journalists will never forget the bitter experience of coming face to face with the power structure in Iran. Yet gaining the ability to think about the society and as such to check-mate political games has been a great achievement for Iranian journalists. The purpose must be to stand up and to think logically. Going to extremes in trying to navigate red lines will bring with it mental and physical fatigue. Under such conditions ideals could also become imaginary t toys that have no connection to the reality of social conditions. Having ideals without understanding social realities will place the journalist on the pedestal of judgment. Journalists must know that being self-riotous can only be a joke.
This, however, is taking place in journalism in Iran today. Reporting events is gradually replacing subjective phraseology. Narration is no longer an enigma wrapped in equivocal words. Now, based on training and the experience of the past years, journalists are facing their audiences with transparent reporting. The wielders of power have understood this and are coming to unwritten understandings with journalists. In a word we can say that journalists in Iran today remain simply as reporters, nothing else.