January 09, 2004
Forbidden Iran II
Okay, here's my take on Forbidden Iran:
As it has become the unfortunate norm in certain journalistic circles, sensationalism and Hollywood drama got in the way of the real story. There was obviously a story there, actually two. One was the "Student Movement", in specific the suppression of students and then Zahra Kazemi's story and what actually happened to her. What in reality became the main topic in this documentary was Jane Kokan's brave endangerment of her life (real or imagined) as well as dramatic and almost fake poses, shots and commentary to add to the drama.
Was Kokan's life in danger? Nobody could say for certain. But anyone who has even traveled through Iran over the past decade could tell you that Iran is not 1975 Soviet Union, 1985 China or 1995 North Korea. Journalists are in fact restricted in their access, but even at worst cases their footage in confiscated and they are tossed out of the country. Kazemi was the exception of course, but that's because they treated her like an Iranian and not a Canadian journalist.
Then there was all the drama; Iman Samizadeh spectacularly proclaims the Iranian government is very dangerous, then demonstrates his website containing pictures of jailed "student leaders", including himself, from his London flat. "Arjang" has an office but is shot mostly moving through dangerous traffic. His name isn't shared but he has no fear of showing his face. Considering we are told he is arrested now, obviously "they" know who he is particularly with a tape of this show now, so who is he (or Kokan) concealing his identity from? Amir Fakravar's very dramatic speech, complete with close ups of his misty-eyed mom is somehow captured on broadcast quality video and then he is able to make a mysterious call from a horrific prison. The unidentified source in Isfahan (who appears a bit older than most average students) feels sitting on a park bench and talking is more dangerous than inviting a foreign woman into his cheap hotel room at night.
I won't say any of these is not true, but there's just way too much fluff and not enough meat. If you want to tell the story of the student uprising, that should be the focus. Do a bit of research to see what the roots of the protest were, what triggered the original protest, provide some factual details for the viewer to absorb, then get some perspective from authorities, and from activists as to where they see this going from here.
If you wish to discuss the murder of Zahra Kazemi, then give us some background on her, other stories she has worked on, maybe samples of her pictures. Interview her colleagues and those who knew her best. Try to get as many different versions of what may have actually happened to her, talk to some experts; forensics people, legal authorities, those who may have been through a similar ordeal. Then tell us what is going to happen next. What steps have been taken, what can be done.
As it is, I got the following from the show; - Iranian government (at least the non-smiling faction) is VERY DANGEROUS. - Students want freedom, but Iranian police is fascist (not much on non-police vigilante types) - Kianoosh who has been arrested four times can use his full name and speak with no disguise, but a foreign journalist must shred her notes on the bus or she may be harmed. - Zahra Kazemi is buried in a holy shrine's cemetery, in an area that is regularly locked up. Anything new or useful? You tell me.
Cold war mentality and this cloak and dagger attitude to journalism has killed enough legitimate stories. I hope the chronicle of Iranians struggle towards democracy and the different obstacles they face in that road is not fallen victim to fast cut, overly dramatic, sensationalist treatment Jane Kokan employed in this way-too-short documentary.
If you haven't seen the program yet, the complete show should be on their site next week, but here's a teaser available now.
Posted by Pedram at January 9, 2004 12:01 AMwell i didn't have the chance *the show*, but i read what i could find on pbs site, to me it all seems a sort of exaggerating unidimentional viewpoint, focusing on students only and the young people...the point is Zahra Kazemi'tortureand her mysterious death were all a good spice for the idea behind this *endangerment* and *life-risking* mission... not to mention that journalism has always had two completely different sides (one truthful and the other fish-catching-in-troubled-waters)
Posted by: sb out there at January 9, 2004 12:06 AMI agree with your assessment Pedram. All fluff and not enough meat. In fact, I think this whole program was a disservice to any reform movement in Iran. It makes them look like petty jokers...
Posted by: Nima at January 9, 2004 05:51 AMCome on Pedram!When was the last time when you visited Iran?Stonning and cutting limbs are legal in Iran;and you don't write about them!And you don't write about leila Fathi as well!
Posted by: John at January 9, 2004 07:49 AMAmazing! Some try to be more catholic than the Pope. Here's "John" telling a former tortured political prisoner from Iran why he doesn't write about cutting limbs!!! Where do they get to become authorities on what they have no clue about???
Posted by: visitor at January 9, 2004 12:33 PMI wonder if "a former political prisoner" should be treated like a saint while he is enjoying the sunshine and comfortable life in Southern California,and Iranian people are being robbed by mullahs and "some former political prisoners from Shah's period"!You live in your fantasy;but Iranian people inside Iran are taking the burden in their day to day life;wake up and grow up brother!DO SOMETHING FOR THEM!
Posted by: John at January 9, 2004 03:21 PMYeah John. Do something. Like make a documentary so unabashadly full of lies and sensationalism that it would make the National Enquirer look like the True and Holy Word of God.
Posted by: Weener at January 9, 2004 03:25 PMDear Pedram,
It might be necessary to put the Thank You note, in an special place...
Thanks so much
Posted by: PA at January 9, 2004 03:28 PMI saw the documentary. I don't know. It seemed kind of melodramatic. I believe I could have done a better job, treating the issue with respect and seriousness that it deserves and giving more of the facts rather than focusing on the emotional aspects.
Posted by: Lola Lee at January 9, 2004 03:52 PMThe so-called documentary was very tasteless and badly made. I was in Iran 3 months ago, and stayed there for about about a month. Yes, there sre student movements and problems with freedom of speech. But the general atmosphere that the film created was 100% FAKE. I therefore agree with Pedram's post.
Posted by: Hoomaan at January 9, 2004 03:56 PMI totally agree with Pedram. But you should not forget that PUBLIC Broadcasting Service only broadcasts something that is appealing to average stupid American public and green-eye long-hair pro-West England-living previously-jailed (!) Iranian student protester who has a Website certainly is the one..who cares about journalism, think about the ratings and number of viewers..
Posted by: Hossein at January 9, 2004 04:49 PMFrontline program years ago presented an alternative docu-news reporting but like any other seriouse news programs has tuned into an entertainment like show. This was not a show about Iranian strugles, students or otherwise. It made both sides of this conflict look like bafoons!!
Posted by: Ali at January 9, 2004 08:06 PMI used to consider PBS to be somewhat different from all the other networks in the U.S. But this program was really really really lame. Pretty much along the same lines as the melted hot fat that sells on all the other dumbass channels.
One interesting thing was the claim that the student was at Ghasr prison. Am I the only one who read that the prison was shut down a couple months ago? They're turning it into a park or museum or some such thing. And anyway I don't think there ever were political prisoners there... Whatever. It sucked.
Posted by: Alireza at January 9, 2004 08:47 PMIt was such a lame show, even not deserved to be called propaganda. Even considering it as an advertisement for a half-ass Amanpour-wannabe reporter is too much credit for it. A 14 year old kid with a super-8 camera could do much better job.
Posted by: Average Joe at January 9, 2004 10:04 PMI absolutely agree with Pedram. These kinds of TV programs not only show the horror of life in Iran but their fake image of the country makes a person (who has visited the country) to become suspicious about the whole issue. This kind of "documentaries" bring "respect" (aaberoo) for a horrific regime.
I remember a few years ago when I left Iran I saw a few members of an opposition group here in the States. They were out of the country for about 18 years. They told me that the revolutionary guards in Iran kill people in the streets for their "Hijab!" I tried to inform them that it is not true; and tried to convince them that the Islamic Republic -as it is- is horrible enough and they don't need to exaggerate the reality, but it looked like they are more interested in their own imaginary hell than the real religious dictatorship in Iran.
The same applies here. The fact that the student activists have not any right to legally create any organization other than "Islamic Societies" in the universities, the fact that the elections are not democratic, and the fact that people are in jail for holding a T-shirt in their hands are horrible enough. Why do you need to make that high-quality hand held camera footage of that guy talking to his mom and claim that it is shot secretly "without the subject knowing about it"? To me it was totally obvious that every thing was set up for the camera. Camera moved around the guy and at the end of the shot the camera moved towards the mother's face showing her tears. What kind of "secretly shot is that? Why does the guy need to do a lecture for the camera before going to jail? and how has such a person have access to the phone in such a "police regime?" We all know how the intelligence police works in Iran. They easily could find the Canadian journalist on the other side of the line by checking the phone number.
The documentary had numerous moments like that. I am not going to mention them all. But I think many people have the same opinion Pedram has about the documentary.
One has to wonder why Pedram and other readers don't seem to be too interested in finding the truth about Zahra's death (like what happened may be normal there), and why we see words like "lame" for PBS, "stupid americans" and other anti-western comments from people enjoying the freedoms of the USA?
The PBS story was simply meant to inform the world on the death of Zahra Kazemi, question why this may have happened, and to prompt the govt of Iran to provide some answers. Maybe john is the only unbiased one in the group....
Posted by: moshash at January 10, 2004 01:23 AMHe's right. The rest of us are just "biased", maybe even downright agents of the Islamic Republic trying to hide the reasons behind Kazemi's death. "John" is the leader of new revolution. He's right.
Posted by: Sarcastic at January 10, 2004 01:39 AMhello tanks .
Posted by: reyhane_nh at January 10, 2004 04:14 AMI just went back to Iran after 18 years (interstingly I was not followed around by the secret police...) and I just saw the show on French tv: I'm puzzled. I didn't feel such an atmosphere in Iran as that described in the show. Perhaps Jane Kokan went to "Iran for the Paranoid" and I went to "Nomal Iran". The student movement and Mrs Kazemi's murder are 2 very seperate problems, mixing both shows a lack of journalistic rigour and respect to those who have died and those fighting for freedom. There is a great lack of freedom in Iran, but compared to the 80s or even before the revolution, I think there has been a lot of progress. That program laked analysis and rigour, its crapy journalism, and it depicted a fake account of life there. That is not going to help change the system. True debate and constructive criticism of the legal system will, not this mush. And those guys saying they could not walk around freely with their girlfriends? Perhaps this is true, but certainly not at Milad Shopping Centre in Tehran, were girls and boys happily hold hands like in any Western country. Thank you Jane Kokan, tomorrow I'll have to try to explain to my french friends how things in Iran are more complicated and subtle than what was on tv!! And I thought things were getting better...
Posted by: yas at January 15, 2004 02:47 PMThank you. I've just watched the program on french tv. In france, we say "mise en scène" to talk about this people like the journalist who wants to show themselves above all. I saw other programs about Iran, opposition and jails. These were good enquiries made by very brave journalists. I learnt a lot watching it. The tourist Jane Kokan is so ridiculous...
Posted by: roméo at January 17, 2004 01:31 PMKokan was spectacular. Many of you sit here, in your compfortable homes in the West, often forgetting the sufferings of the Iranian people. The journalist had all the right to feel paranoid: she was trying to collect valuable information about the atrocidies commited by the Mullahs! They would have definitely arrested her if the were aware of her intentions. It seems that many of you have unfortuneatly become oblivious to the situation in Iran... This is a shame.
DEMOCRACY IN IRAN!
Posted by: at January 18, 2004 12:29 PMHow much you want to bet that "DEMOCRACY IN IRAN!" hasn't lived in Iran for a decade or more?
Posted by: Irooni at January 18, 2004 01:15 PMsorry for my english!! just to say i'am with
you!!!! no more religion and averything will
be better!!!
what about "imagine" of John Lennon ?