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."
Awesome show! Not to mention "Raul's Wild Kingdom" and "SECRETS secrets secrets secrets of of of of the Universe"
"Today, we'll be learning to make plutonium....from common household items...."
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.
In the USA...
... others have largely tuned out.
Since the 1979 revolution turned television into a grim, corporate-controlled affair -- which most Americans say they find biased, boring, or both --
Think we could get that guy to broadcast to the US?
Best Slashdot Co
Do those plans include the release of "Conan the Librarian - The Director's Cut"?
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
He didn't fill the air with a lot of subversive political talk. He simply continued to beam into the sky movies and music and cooking shows and tastefully exposed Persian female flesh
I hope "cooking shows and tastefully exposed Persian female flesh" isn't one show.
Leaves a bad aftertaste in the mouth after reading that.
The Iranian government is going to retaliate by creating their own station to broadcast to the United States! :^)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
The biggest export of the US as far as impact, is entertainment. Here, they have an audience hungry for content, and a station that would be happy to take support and attack a regime they clearly have a problem with.
One cruise missile could fund this station for a year, and would do more to improving relations with the people of the goverment. Why sacrifice our people fighting a useless war with them? Or attacking their government when their own people clearly dislike it.
I guess it doesn't play as well in the polls for the politicians to say "We fund pirate TV stations" as it is to say "We decided to go in and blow sh*t up!". Let's face it, the current administration has all but declared they want to go in and wage war.
ChuckyG
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.
This reminds me the early days of private Tv channels in Turkey. Till 1988 private TV channels were not allowed and we had to watch the nice but limited government channels. One day the son of the president of the government started a company in Europe and they broadcasted to Turkey via satellite. And after that day Turkey had a very fast transition from communism style tv broadcasting to almost US style tv broadcasting. This great change almost influenced everything in the country including music industry and news and freedom of speech. Fortunately the parliment in Turkey listened to the communities to legalize the private TV channels but I am not sure if this would be the case for Iranians since they are already banning Turkish channels broadcasting over Iran.
They speak Farsi in Iran and Aimaq, Tajiki, Ashkun, Azerbaijani, Balochi, Brahui, Darwazi, Farsi, Gawar-Bati, Gujari, Hazaragi, Jakati, Kamviri, Karakalpak, Kazakh, Kirghiz, Malakhel, Mogholi, Pashto, Pashayi, Sanglechi-Ishkashimi, Tanshewi, Tatar, Tirahi, Turkmen, Uyghur, Uzbek, Waigali, Wakhi, Warduji, and Wotapuri-Katarqalai in Afghanistan.
I wonder why Afghan culture is so fragmented...
Cough*CIA*Cough
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
It's never as easy as that. Here's three potential problems, and there are more:
(1) We already have a broadcast means to present American opinions and points of view -- it's called the Voice of America, it's got editorial independence, and it's been broadcast in Farsi for several years.
(2) While I don't know the editorial leanings of this station in particular, whoever chose to support it (state department?) would have a tough time maintaining their support once some politician started complaining that their views didn't exactly match American foreign policy -- and I bet they say some things about Israel that would sure piss off a Congressman. Before you cry "censorship", remember that the U.S. doesn't have to support unpopular views, it just can't forbid them.
(3) The U.S. has enough problems with "Street Cred" as it is. Iran has already banned the station, but they'll lose more viewers, I think, if it turns out that this is just bought and paid for by the U.S.
Of course, if the new "Office of Strategic Influence" decided to underhandedly throw a little money their way, especially if they didn't try to assert editorial control, I'd certainly support it.
But don't automatically assume they don't 'cause we'd rather blow shit up.
In light of recent events and world circumstances I find it deeply disturbing that you are promoting civilized thought concerning one of the "Axis of Evil." Do you want the terrorists to win?
As we are in an ongoing war against Evil Regimes like these it is advised that we think of their populations not as unwashed TV-loving hoards such as in America, but only as evil-doers and potential terrorists. Promoting news stories in this manner is unamerican as it will not allow us to kill thousands of innocent civilians (as in Afghanistan) without burdoning the general population with uncomfortable feelings of guilt or shame - feelings which will undoubtedly affect our economy. Do you want the recession to continue?
By publishing news items such as this and allowing "free" discussion, you are only making it much harder for the government to start more wars, the military to recieve more monies and the Republicans to stay in office. I urge you, in the future, to respect this time of national crisis and return to covering your normal subjects such as useless news about technology, science and Anime.
Yours,
Nona Yurbidness
Propaganda Office of the Resident of the United States of America.
P.S. Since you obviously have problems being American, the NSA has been assigned to monitor your internal communications and shopping patterns for more anti-government activities such as these. You have been warned.
Me
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.
But even if we consider your idea, that the government does it. Surely it would not be hard to set up some sort of a donation fund for the station that accepts money anonymously. The article didn't mention there was one, but if not, there should be. This way, the station can act like it's probably Iranian dissidents in the west that are making contributions (and that's not so unrealistic, when the salary of a single surgeon kept the station running this long).
You're probably right that the US government would probably insist on screwing around with the content, probably regarding antisemetism, like you say. Then the cover would be blown and the station would be treated as another Voice of America, which isn't really taken very seriously in the reigeon because the propaganda on it is pretty heavy-handed. Have you ever actually listened to the VOA? They lay it on pretty thick; they might have "editorial independence" but if so, it seems their editors really enjoy marching and flag-waving. That's why everybody ignores it and listens to the BBC, which delivers propaganda much less blatantly.
Just a little footnote to what nomadic said, since it bears on the impression most people have about Iran: Farsi is an Indo-European language, meaning it's in the same language family as English, French, Russian, and most of the languages spoken in Western Europe. The notable exceptions are Basque, Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian; Basque is a language 'isolate', meaning there are no known related languages, the last 3 belong to the Finno-Ugric family of languages. This all means that Iranians speak a language much more closely-related to English than Finnish, etc.
Arabic, is relevant for Islam in the same way Latin is for the Catholic Church, which is why many (most?) people in dominantly Muslim countries can speak Arabic... as a second language, in the case of Iran, Afghanistan, and others.
Disclaimer: I studied Linguistics, but I know *very* little about the countries and cultures in question.
-chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
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?