Jamshid Barzegar is a journalist and analyst of Iranian issues at BBC. He is someone who has a fundamental and logical approach and looks at journalism and news with a completely professional eye. We sat down with him to talk about Iranian journalism and asked for his opinions on the state of Persian-language media inside and outside the country. Finally, we discussed Mr. Barzegar’s model in the field of media work and writing; a question that he himself considers to be the most difficult question of this interview. Join us and Mr. Jamshid Barzegar in this interview…

Dear Mr. Jamshid Barzegar, thank you for the time you have given to the peace line. First of all, let me talk a little about yourself and your background, and how did you end up at the BBC?

I started my career in journalism in the late 60s-early 70s, around the time I entered university. I studied political science at the University of Tehran and at the School of Political Science, and I have a master’s degree in political science. During my time as a student, I also worked as a journalist alongside my main job in literature. I mainly worked in political departments in newspapers. I also worked in independent publications in the literature and art section, but my professional career in journalism, in the true sense of the word, began at the newspaper Iran. I worked at Iran-e-Javan magazine, then at the newspaper Entekhab, and my last job was launching the newspaper Hamshahri. After that, I was unable to continue working and left Iran. In 2001, when I came to Vienna for my PhD studies, BBC contacted me as an analyst and this collaboration soon turned into a permanent job. After Vienna, I went to London where I

Mr. Barzegar; It has been about a year since the government of Mr. Rouhani came to power with the slogans and discussions they raised. If you want to analyze the current situation of the Iranian media, how do you see it? How does this situation compare to last year or previous years?

I don’t think anything very important has happened and a noticeable difference has occurred. It means that the restrictions are in place. During this time, we saw newspapers being shut down. Newspapers that were close to the government anyway; like what happened in the second term of Khordad. During Mr. Ahmadinejad’s term, at least this didn’t happen in a way that a newspaper close to the government would be seized. In some places, it can even be said that these restrictions were even more prevalent during the end of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s term. The reason for this is that during that time, we witnessed this traditional pattern where criticism of the presidents is opened up in the end, and we saw that in the end of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s term, newspapers could criticize more openly and have more freedom of action.

In general, newspapers that are classified as being among the reformist newspapers within the ruling government faced and continue to face limitations. For example, the confiscation of Aseman newspaper in its early issues was one of these cases. There are also problems in government-critical newspapers; such as the statements attributed to the Minister of Information and the summoning of officials of these newspapers, including Shariatmadari. These issues show that controlling mechanisms are being imposed from above; both on pro-government and anti-government media. As long as these mechanisms exist and their control is in the hands of external entities, this situation will be a destructive one. Even if it is in the short term or in a specific period, its outcome will have a negative impact.

These issues are completely separate from political alignments and inclinations that can seriously affect the process of journalism…

The most important problem that I think we are facing in today’s media in Iran is the issue of censorship of news. This is an extremely crucial and important point. It means that what is absent in today’s media is news. The flow of information is completely controlled and passes through special filters. What may be a little more open is the discussion of analysis, interpretation, or the publication of articles, opinions, and views, which is of secondary importance because the main issue is that accurate information is provided about events and news. There must be transparency and freedom in information; information about the event itself should be provided to the people or audience so that they are aware of what is happening. There are many examples that can be given; from discussions within the government to what is happening within society.

You talked about limitations and confrontations and considered censorship as a fundamental element. I want to know if these issues are a result of a systematic system or a product of space and subjective confrontations? Can we have hope for a better future based on current laws in Iran?

I do not want to talk or judge about the future in advance, but my interpretation is that, based on what has gradually become apparent over the past three decades, from 1980 until now, the principle has always been about confrontation and control. In some cases, personal preferences have also been applied, but the main principle has always been confrontation. Policies and red lines have always existed (sometimes these red lines have shifted, moving one centimeter forward or backward, but they have always been there). Throughout all these periods, regardless of who was in power or who was not, there has always been confrontation. This confrontation has been carried out by the government at times, and at other times by the judicial power or even by parallel intelligence and security institutions. From the perspective of the media, it ultimately does not matter who or which institution carried out these actions. Whether you look at the “Ayandegan” newspaper or the “Asman” newspaper, those who paid the price and were ultimately

With these interpretations, what do you think is the main problem of the media in Iran before and after the revolution? My question is about a fundamental element that is the issue of media in Iran…

See, I believe that the issue is really beyond the media. That is, limiting this discussion to the media does not give us a satisfying answer. What I mean is that you can only talk about freedom of speech, freedom of information, and freedom of the media when many other discussions have been accepted. For example, when there is no freedom for political parties, there will be no freedom for the media and the media in the first place. Anyway, we have to accept that the things we are talking about have a pattern and that pattern is the one that has taken shape in the Western world.

You see, when there is no competition in the field of power, you can’t expect the media to have this opportunity. When parties don’t have the possibility of active freedom, you can’t expect a group of journalists to come and fill this void themselves. Newspapers will ultimately reflect this perspective and trend. While it is not a problem for newspapers to have political activities or orientations like anywhere else in the world, if this platform of diversity is provided, we can expect journalists and media to adhere to principles, especially in the field of news and information, to be accurate, impartial, and fair. Of course, they have the freedom to publish their own views and make the audience aware that this newspaper or media is closer to this or that political movement and, of course, supports their political views, but not in reporting news. That is, we should not interfere in the transmission of reality. However, this is also a secondary issue…

Until the four pillars are not provided, until an independent judiciary does not exist, until elections are not established in their true sense, until political parties do not have free activity, until civil society is not strengthened, and until non-governmental institutions and NGOs do not have the ability to operate, expecting the existence of a free press is an extremely unrealistic and essentially impossible expectation. This expectation that journalists can reach their destination this time, has been placed on the shoulders of journalists since June 22nd.

Mr. Barzegar, you made a very good point. But after June 1976 and even before that, we have been faced with a phenomenon called journalism with a political stance. Are journalists and news supporters generally defined as supporters or defenders or opponents of a political movement?

It’s okay for a journalist to have a political perspective. We shouldn’t become extreme or biased. We believe that a journalist should be a political activist, as you said, who has been seen widely since June 2nd, or on the other hand, some believe that a journalist shouldn’t be political at all and have a political perspective. Well, this is also unrealistic. A journalist, like any other citizen, has their own political perspective. The discussion here is how much we can involve our personal perspectives in our work and to what extent we can replace our perspectives with reality and present it as reality to the audience. In the West, we have two types of media. One is like the BBC, which is not necessary for all media to be like it; the BBC has certain principles, including impartiality and not allowing personal perspectives to be involved even in analyses and interpretations. But on the other hand, in America or even in England, there are other media outlets that operate differently.

Unfortunately, these borders are completely blurred in Iranian journalism. This means that not only in our analytical discussions, but also in news coverage, we are selective and, in addition to government censorship, we – as journalists – have also participated in censorship in the publication or non-publication of news.

Therefore, there are two discussions. Journalists, of course, have political views and depending on the media they work for, the level of involvement of these views may change. For example, a national media like the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, which is funded by the government budget determined by the parliament and is essentially what is known as the “Beit al-Mal” in Iran, is obligated to remain impartial in factional, political, or even economic disputes. Well, as you can see, this does not happen in IRIB because the political appointees of the leader have their own tendencies and follow that tendency. But this expectation is not correct in other media. For example, imagine a magazine belonging to a conservative or right-wing faction; there is no reason for that magazine to promote reformist views. That magazine or journalist must come and defend their own views. Just as a reformist journalist comes and defends their views. Or tries to promote them. If it were possible for intellectuals

Dear Mr. Barzegar, you have a strong emphasis on the element of news. However, in Iran, it has happened that newspapers have turned towards intellectual and theoretical discussions and have pages full of extraordinary and insightful thoughts. Do you think it is the duty of a newspaper and news media to engage in theoretical discussions?

Exactly, this issue is due to that same void and it has inevitably happened. However, according to world newspapers, there are certain patterns and it is not far-fetched that, for example, in a society like Iran, philosophical discussions or, as you say, theoretical discussions, are more popular or more widely read than in a country like France with its intellectual tradition, or Germany, or for example, Britain. In fact, it is not even comparable! Many of these discussions are not even in the newspapers. Such discussions take time to produce and to read, and for this reason, they are usually left to monthly magazines or specialized publications. In contrast, for example, the news section is usually one of the most widely read sections and the main focus in the news section is on the news. When a murder or theft occurs, you report it on this page. Or in the sports section, it is the same. But in political or economic sections, the situation is different. You do

The main purpose of a newspaper is to inform and provide news; it is what is missing and that is the main point. Pay attention to where a newspaper is published with the main section of the front page being a note, for example. This type of progress is not considered in our journalism. It is a type of regression and in fact shows a type of void and lack that our journalism and society suffer from. Therefore, a journalist in Iran is a note writer. It is not like this in other places. A journalist and reporter is someone who can produce and research news and have this freedom. In Iran, this is definitely not allowed. The news is completely guided and controlled, drip-fed and with extremely high sensitivity. Let’s see what happened where the discussion is about news. Why was Mr. X or Ms. Eager arrested? For example, it was not clear what the details of the serial killings were or how Ms. Zahra Kazemi was killed…

Mr. Barzgar, if you allow, let’s take the discussion to Iranian media outside the borders. In your opinion, how independent are these media outlets? In fact, to what extent do they adhere to the element of independence that you also emphasized?

In general, I can say about the media that have been active in the West in the past three decades, some are more directly aligned with the government (such as Voice of America) and if you remember, they always had a section that reflected the White House’s views during their time on radio and explicitly announced it. But if this media defends something in the end, it is within a general framework that the political system in that society is based on. That is, they support liberal democracy.

See, the issue of independence has probably been discussed many times, for example, on BBC, but with the experience and mindset that we Iranians have, it may be difficult to accept. However, almost all those who have come and worked at the BBC had a negative mindset, but later when they saw how news was produced or how reports were written, they came to the conclusion that this independence exists. It’s not like someone from above comes and stands and orders you to say this and not say that. Or even more generally, there are specific principles that if an editor wants to reject or approve a topic, they are obliged to argue based on them. When someone suggests a topic to the editor, the editor cannot say no, we won’t do this topic because it’s not in line with the interests of the British government! At least in the Persian section of BBC and Radio Farda, where I was present, this doesn’t happen and I cannot make a judgment about other radios or media

What impact has the departure of journalists and reporters, especially since 2009, had on the media landscape in Iran? Does the absence of professional forces who have been working in Iran for years and have been invested in, felt?

See, I don’t look at this situation like you do. This wasn’t the first major migration after the revolution and this is a repetitive story. We have had at least three migration periods from the beginning of the revolution until now, with the most recent one being related to the Green Movement and the 88 elections.

Unfortunately, one of the events that happened in Iran was the breaking of generational ties. This means that it was never possible for -because our discussion here is about journalism- journalists to have the necessary connection to transfer these experiences. This means that our journalism went through stages before the revolution. But many of those journalists were eliminated, forced to leave the country, or banned from work and confined to their homes. They were unable to pass on their experiences to the next generation. That generation came and started their own experiences, but when they reached a certain point, the same disasters happened to them and they were unable to pass on their experiences. This was actually a historical process that we have suffered greatly from and have been forced to go through trials and errors that were probably unnecessary. Perhaps if these experiences had been transferred, the level of our journalism would have been much better in many ways than it is today.

This young generation who left Iran in 2009 and you talk about, in fact, replaced those who had been forced to leave Iran or were imprisoned a few years earlier and had generally been pushed out of the field of journalism.

Of course, the presence of these individuals outside of the country naturally has its strengths and brings along its advantages: it prevents the stagnation of journalism outside of the country. Especially for those who do not have the opportunity to go inside Iran and test their own views against the reality, evaluate and correct them, and gain a closer understanding of the issues, this presence and connection here helps to fill that void and correct those understandings. Overall, I believe that in comparison to its positive aspects, its negative points may be less prominent.

The question that arises is what is the cause of this generational gap and how can it be reduced or solved?

The reason for this is quite clear; the power of the ruling agent and the underlying cause of these events. It is he who comes and makes decisions. Pay attention to the Kayhan and Ettelaat newspapers during the revolution. See what happened to these two newspapers after the revolution and how they were fundamentally purged. Or the independent publications that emerged and were seized one after another. We reach a point where several newspapers are published and they all say the same thing and follow the same line. Or after June 2nd, what pressures were imposed on journalists. The reason for this new wave of migration that you mentioned is nothing but security issues such as the risk of detention or unemployment.

In the realm of political activity, the same problems exist and political parties and organizations are in the same situation; meaning they have never been able to participate in a natural process, transfer their experiences. The accumulated experience of previous members is not combined with the energy of young, creative and innovative individuals.

In your opinion, how much did international media play a role in the emergence of democracy in Iran and strengthening civil society?

There is no doubt that they play a role; especially in recent years with the presence of satellites and the internet, many discussions that existed 10-20 years ago have been negated. The lack of communication has reached a minimum; I’m not saying it has become zero or insignificant, but it has decreased significantly and it is natural that it has an impact. For example, the role of Twitter was first seen during the Green Movement and then, for example, during the Arab Spring. There is no doubt that many of these websites and television channels pass through that iron curtain and break the cycle of monopoly and have an impact. However, firstly, their impact will take time and secondly, it is only to familiarize Iranian citizens with ideas and thoughts. They are not just political media that do this. They are not just Persian-language media. Iranian society is in a situation where any action can be perceived as a confrontation and take on political dimensions. An example of this is the song “

Therefore, this wider connection with the outside world will inevitably have its own effects, just as it has in our past history. When intellectuals, also known as “enlightened thinkers”, traveled to the West, Russia, or the Ottoman Empire of that time, they became familiar with various issues and returned to have their own impact. In the meantime, the media also serve as intermediaries for this exchange and for creating this familiarity. It is natural that they will be influential, both in the minds and behaviors of citizens and in the rulers who hold power.

Mr. Faraj Sarkoohi has recently raised a point in response to Mr. Masoud Kimiayi’s discussion that could be a topic of debate and challenge. He says that in recent decades, a misconception has become prevalent among some Iranian journalists that the media, editors, and chief editors are not responsible for the information and data they publish, but rather it is the responsibility of the writers, editors, and reporters. However, Mr. Sarkoohi believes that the sanctity of this profession and the position of editor and chief editor should not be diminished to the level of a text collector, administrative manager, or postman. Do you think that journalists and reporters are simply conveyors of existing news, or as Mr. Sarkoohi suggests, are they also responsible and accountable for its accuracy?

Yes, I am also in agreement that the editor-in-chief is not a postman. This means that it is not expected for them to simply receive and publish any material given to them. We see that there are many media outlets that operate in this manner and the result is often unknown and confusing. This is not the type of journalism that we believe is correct. Especially when it comes to power, it becomes very dangerous and completely undermines the independence of the newspaper, media, and journalists. This is crucial for a media outlet. On the other hand, as a journalist, editor-in-chief, and interviewer, you should not be a manipulator and a stylist. This means that journalists, editors-in-chief, and interviewers cannot create a false image of the person being interviewed. This means that if the interviewee gives incorrect information, lies, is completely unaware and uninformed about a topic, or worse, has no responsibility, you cannot come and correct all of these things and then publish them

There are different ways. You need to have the necessary information and during the interview, challenge the interviewee and with serious and deep questions, by including facts in your questions, give the audience the opportunity to realize where the interviewee is lying and giving false statistics. If this doesn’t happen, a note should be published alongside it. Another way is to talk to people like Mr. Ahmad Reza Ahmadi, Mr. Shamlou and members of the Writers’ Association mentioned, at least to talk to them and include their views alongside it; now about the name of Forough [Farrokhzad], which is a stronger topic and the accusation of collaborating with censorship regarding Mr. Shamlou and others… However, this issue has not been paid attention to, not only at the time of publication, but also after that and when these individuals denied it. Even the Shargh newspaper did not publish these denials.

Therefore, I believe that a journalist cannot change words (especially Mr. Kimiayi’s words). Of course, I don’t think Mr. Sarkoohi means that journalists should come and actually take over and manipulate what a person says and present a distorted and altered image of that person to the audience.

We started with questions from ourselves and we want to finish with ourselves. Mr. Barzegar, in any case, we have personalities in the media who have become a type or a legend. As a final question, which media personality do you pay attention to as a role model or a vision?

This is the hardest question of this interview. Honestly, I had never asked myself this question before. I have always admired many journalists and have read their work and learned from them, but I had never actually seen the person behind it, I was more interested in their collections and movements. For example, when I was launching the new Radio Farda website and later when I was managing it, I followed a certain school of journalism, one that I was more familiar with from BBC and believed in…

But perhaps unconsciously during my teenage and young adult years, just as I was influenced by Shamloo in the field of literature, his style of journalism also appealed to me in the same way and had a much stronger influence on me and attracted me. For example, in that same book “Jomeh” which was his last work, it strongly attracted me.

Thank you for giving us your time…