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."

Comments

Now I wish Americans would watch alternative media

[Dr. Spork]

This article really reminds me of a certain poverty in the USA, a poverty that is obviously absent in Iran. The scene in Iran is like it used to be in the old Communist block: few people really paid attention to the state radio, because they were too savvy accept it uncritically. According to some studies, "alternative media", which in that case meant news from the west, had 80% penetration. They undertook considerable risk to obtain and circulate foreign stuff, but they still did it, because they had a hunger to know what the outside world was like.

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.