Slashdot Mirror
The Satellite Subversives
SomeoneYouDontKnow writes: "The New York Times (free registration reguired, blah blah blah) has a fascinating article about a former Iranian rock star who has launched a pirate TV station broadcasting back into Iran from, of all places, L.A. From reading the article, I can't help but compare Narional Iranian Television to U-62 from the movie "UHF" because of its ultra-low-budget operations and programming, but, like the fictional station, it's wildly popular. OK, I know this is a little off the beaten track for Slashdot articles, but it's nice to see that there's a broadcaster out there more interested in providing a meaningful service than figuring out ways to squeeze more and more money out of viewers."
Zia Atabay's story reminds me of the craziness and single-mindedness of David Lean's protagonists (Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai). There is this megalomaniacal purpose to achieve what one has set out for, doesn't matter even if it is no longer practical. Yet, these are the men that shape history for us.. who, to satiate their ego, will not stint at anything to show us its possible to do what they do. I have the greatest admiration for Zia Atabay even though he started out to make some money of it, but eventually came clean.
Sometimes those quirky independent Iranian films aren't half bad. Sundance and IFC plays 'em. Iranian law sharply circumscribes what can be put in movies and Iranian producers are often creative in being entertaining in spite of these. You have the job of making something interesting with next to no violence and sex. It's difficult but they often pull it off. I think it's because they're have no choice but to pay attention character development and plot. The best results are a lot like some of the better 40s and 50s cinema.
Cough*CIA*Cough
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
It seems the same sort of sentiment is very much alive in Iran, and I think that's wonderful. It's quickly dying in Eastern Europe (people read more foreign media before it became legal). However, the spirit is totally dead in the USA. I've realized that American propaganda is the best in the world. This is because it not only succeeds in displacing or marginalizing all serious dissent, but it manages to convince its consumers that it's hiding nothing.
Iranians are obviously not naive enough to think that their national media tells it like it is, but Americans think exactly this of our own domestic media. To someone who has lived in many parts of the world and makes an effort to closely follow world events in the world press, FOX news and the Washington Post seem almost the same. It's telling that Americans perceive the former as being ultra-right-wing and the latter as being very liberal--as though any political positions outside of this range can only be entertained by the insane. That range, in fact, is very narrow, and it's constantly narrowing further as the government clamps down on media outlets, and as they slowly consolidate into mega-info-corporations.
No, we are not getting the straight story in the USA. That should be no surprise, as our government and the media sources themselves have interests to protect. It's no different anywhere else in the world. But really, would any American take time off work to watch a crappy satellite channel that provides a dissenting and balancing view? Hell no! We leave that task to ... the American media, who conveniently beam news into prime time and leave it on our doorsteps. These guys manage to stir up very vigorous debates about mere details of policy. We watch it and think "great, I'm hearing both sides of the issue" but we forget how close the two sides were to being with. We ignore all the stuff that is NOT being debated.
For example, since we're on the topic of Iran: the two sides of the policy debate go as follows. The "hawks" think that the vigorous efforts of Iranian scientists to master rocketry must be destroyed ASAP with some cluster bombs and daisy cutters, because if they learn how to build rockets, they become able to attack our allies, and perhaps eventually the USA itself. The doves think that we should instead funnel money and support (=weapons) into the fledgling democracy movements so that the clerical government is overthrown the "natural" way. Or, perhaps the pressure will force them to abandon their research. So, we think the issue to ponder is: who's right, the hawks or the doves? Nobody in the US press could ever even float the following idea: "Maybe Iran has a right to defend its people with modern weapons, just like we do." Or how about "Since Iran is obviously making the transition to military modernization, we should see to it that they end up our allies." Well, I'm sure you could think of many more such insane and out-of-bounds position which, from a neutral point of view, have quite a bit of sense to them. But don't expect them to be even considered by the US media. Their grip on our political thoughts is so tight that the average Iranian citizen is effectively exposed to a much larger diversity of political views. For shame!
Here, alternative points of view are limited to the rants of kooks on /.--and nobody really listens to them.
to generalize and simplify a bit:
who were the iranians who fled for their lives at the time of the revolution? the wealthy, many of whom were in bed with the shah, a cruel US-backed dictator who was giving away the store to multinationals while his people starved. many of these wealthy iranians, some of whom now live in LA, lost property in the revolution, and would like it back. meanwhile in Iran today khatami is a democratically elected leader who appears to be trying to modernize the country, walking a fine line between what his voters want and what is acceptable to the religious conservatives, who wield a lot of power in the society.
in another post someone pointed out that entertainment is the US' most potent export. the world is fascinated with what it believes are our lifestyles, those portrayed by movies and tv. especially in countries with state media controls, which usually lead to incredibly boring programming, anything from the US is hot stuff. farsi-language programming is going to be a hit.
perhaps one question in this case is, to what end?
aside from loving the idea of shoestring pirate satellite tv breaking through censorship, I wonder what else is going on here. thoughts, anyone?
You would think that if this man was losing money, and that he was causing a political movement that we (the US) would consider to be important, that we could "secretly" find him some money, because what they are doing with humor and music is one thousand times better than all the damnable secret money that we use to do nasty, evil subversive things to people. After all, we "find" money to do things that benefit us in the world all the time... time to "find" some cash for him.
Give him my government money, before they send it to the CIA. Battles are won and lost with the populace, you want to win over Iran, then stop counter-arming sucessionist groups and get more information out to them.
I live in Nashville, TN, and my best friend in CA tells me about all of his friends videotapes and pictures from Iran, where they are playing Playstation 2 and listening to CDs, and having a good time importing it back to their family members. I was a little surprised, but when I thought about it, it was REALLY NOT THAT SURPRISING. Its not as though people that speak another language don't want to have fun. Its not like everyone over there believes everything that is said to them, or all of the religious encouragement to kill. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY FELLOW AMERICANS, its not like most of them want to blow themselves up or kill millions of us in atomic hellfire. They, like most regimes controlled populace, are radically misinformed. Time to change that... the nice way, before its way too late.
Only the politicals would think that an auto racing game would be unpure and corrupt thought. Just like our radical losers in our government. Once people start learning that human means human, then we'll make progress.
Honestly, its not like the rhetoric that Bush is pushing has helped a damn thing other than the regime that he is fighting. Congrats Bush, now they have concrete evidence to say that America hates them and the rest of the world... Good one. Iran, please commence with the flag burning in the streets, we have to give you that one after 'ol Captain Texas starts a gettin' warmed up.
Good luck Persians. Most of us don't know what language you speak for what region. Please educate us and befriend us. We need all the information we can get. After all, you're just as human as the rest of us.
Are the American people responsible for the acts of their governments? I certainly wouldn't hold the Afghans, or Iranians to that standard; but what's the case in a democracy?
I understand your viewpoint, and the proof of me being fair is the post I had earlier about Iranians just wanting what everyone else does, just to be happy. But I disagree with what you say. I am not angry, I just disagree.
But in rebuttal to your claims to a democracy and that the idividuals that live in that domocracy are responsible, let me say one thing. American is a representative democracy. That means we hire to represent for four years. If you noticed the debacle that happened with our most current election, just slightly over 50% of the people in the country didn't want him. Trust me, the people will decide to keep him or not. But we can't be responsible for every single word our of his mouth, so you are close to correct.
But what can be said about Iran? Why haven't the young 50% taken what is theirs from the 10% that control? My people (the Americans) did that 200 years ago, without television, without all of the modern issues, with hunting guns. I admit it is more complex than what I say, but why so late, why hasn't Iran become the modern, beautiful state that supports Iranians instead of hurting them? Why do so few control so many? My ancestors died horribly to give me my freedoms. Cmon Iran, we know you can do it too. I want to see Tehran without being accused of being a spy. I want to see Persia too... I know it is beautiful. I know all about Middle Eastern hospitality, it is the best in the world. I want to learn Arabic and Farsi. Right now, I cannot see your world because it is too dangerous for me to go to Iran because of my skin color alone.
The US government has already gone too far with Afghanistan, and I hope that we, the people of the world wake up and hold them accountable for their crimes against humanity.
Crimes against humanity? Would the killing of thousands of innocents be a crime against humanity too? The Taliban attacked the center of our largest city. We cannot live our lives knowing the next attack is guaranteed be larger, or more deadly because new people saw their success and want to join.
Ultimately, I know all common people would like to meet and be friendly the Persian and Arabic people, not kill them. But look at our perspective... Are Middle Easteners enslaved in America? Do they not have religious freedom? Could they not write a banner that says "Allah is most high" and not have it torn down? Christian Americans would fight to keep that banner up, because if they didn't, they know they would be next. Trust that I would, friend. Common Americans are very, very concerned about crimes against humanity. We respect Islam and your choices.
Keep in mind that the last three world-wide military actions the US has done (especially Bosnia) has been to save the oppression of Muslims, especially from violent Christians. That's right, mostly Christian soldiers fighting off Christians to save Muslims. Think about that for a little while. Would a Muslim attack another Muslim to save a Christian?
So my question is this, because it flips it back on your world view...
How would Islam react to another religion's extremists flying a jet into the center of Mecca during the haj? Would they be reasonable about that? Or would the whole Islamic world get stirred up like angry ants and try to kill all other religions? Would every imam scream for blood then? I know what Muslims are willing to do for Islam in a crisis.
Crimes against humanity is not a relative term. We are trying to stabilize them after we get rid of a terrorist group we should have focused on a long time ago. We are dealing with racist, mass-murdering, lying, mass-destruction causing murderers. Murderurs that entire governments have supported. How do you deal with them and their friends?
Enough talk. If you and I try, we will make the world a better place.
Be safe, be good. Hope to meet you some day, instead of fighting you. Good passage.
Only one - just one poster on this story bothered to bring up the obvious subject of how much it cost for someone to put their own network on a satellite and what kind of equipment was necessary.
There's other questions that could be asked too. Can satellites be hacked? Would it cost 90K a month if someone was to launch their own bargain basement type satellite? How many satellite stations are possible on one satellite? What's the potential for signal hacking, culture jamming and counter propaganda?
Is anyone awake out there?
So, we think the issue to ponder is: who's right, the hawks or the doves? Nobody in the US press could ever even float the following idea: "Maybe Iran has a right to defend its people with modern weapons, just like we do." Or how about "Since Iran is obviously making the transition to military modernization, we should see to it that they end up our allies."
n tellectual-one" attitude of "alternative" media in America. If the people in Iran turn to alternative media (which is, as was stated, outlawed) it means they're fed-up with the state sponsored media that they're given. From the little I know about Iran, I can say with confidence this isn't the only part of their culture which not only goes against U.S., but is undesirable for the people living there. Even worse, the attitude of the government could potentially threaten the country's immediate neighbors, allies of the US further away, and the US itself. It amazes me that people are foolish enough to even argue that something doesn't needed to be done.
Sorry if this sounds hostile, but how can you expect major news networks to carry viewpoints that are insane? Normally I would say here, "Maybe I'm just close-minded, but.." but not in this case, because I know I'm right. Before I go on I should probably say that I understand your point, but it's a flawed one and your example is especially flawed.
First of all, "right-wing" and "left-wing" does describe the opinion of the majority of the American populace. If that weren't the case the kind of media you want people to pay attention to wouldn't be considered alternative. My biggest problem with those who subscribe to viewpoints that don't fit with these larger groups is that they just assume that since the average American doesn't agree with them the average American must a) not understand them or b) be too stupid to understand them.
In the case of what National Iranian Television is doing there's a purpose to it. The government in Iran is preventing the broadcast of independent television and so they're serving a useful purpose. The majority of people in Iran can realize the state-sponsored stuff they're being fed isn't all that exists (and, more importantly, they don't agree with it) so they're willing to turn to other forms of entertainment and information. This is far from the case in the United States, where the majority of people do (and yes, I find it strange too) enjoy what's being broadcast to them. Those who don't turn to other outlets. It's that simple.
As for your example (which is what prompted me to respond, even though this posted ended up being much lengthier than I intended) it just proves the misguided, "if-it's-not-the-popular-opinion-it-must-be-the-i
And, once again, this is the problem with American alternative media. It often consists of stubborn people presenting views that are outspoken for a reason. Obviously there's nothing wrong with this, but it bothers me that these people consistently take on the "how can I possibly be wrong?" mentality.
Oh, well.
If you need to interpret my post, then you don't get it.