According to the recent decision of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, which was approved in the afternoon session on Wednesday, 30 Khordad, under the leadership of Ebrahim Raisi, the responsibility of monitoring the areas of audio and video platforms and the “Home Display” network will now be under the responsibility of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting organization.

According to this resolution, from now on, the legal authority for supervision, issuing permits, production, and also broadcasting all home display network programs, including documentaries, animations, feature films, and TV series, will solely be the responsibility of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.

Supervising all processes of production and display of films and series on home networks has raised concerns that the limited space available for producing films and series on home networks will also be subject to strict regulations and censorship by the broadcasting authority.

To further investigate this topic and answer related questions in the field of home entertainment and in a broader perspective, the cultural economy, we sat down for a conversation with Dr. Albert Baghzian, a professor of economics at the University of Tehran.

‌ی تولید و توزیع محتوا

According to the recent resolution of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, the issuance, supervision, and regulation of “user-centric” and “publisher-centric” media, as well as home display networks and licenses for content production and distribution, are based on the recent resolution of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution.“سلام، چطوری؟”

“Hello, how are you?”ک روز

One day

The production of series and television programs is the responsibility of the national broadcasting company. What is the goal of the national broadcasting company and how is the basis for making such decisions formed?

Unfortunately, governmental institutions have a very wide control over all cultural fields and the production of cultural products. No cultural product, from music to books and plays and films, can be published without going through the complicated process of government organizations. Essentially, the government insists on having control over all of these matters, which has made cultural work in Iran very difficult. However, in this resolution, the situation is such that the regulation, licensing, and monitoring of home screenings have been entrusted to the Radio and Television Organization.

The organization of the national broadcasting system consists of two media, namely radio and television. These are two distinct media and the home viewing network has no connection to television. It is true that users watch the produced works through a device called television, but this does not mean that the home viewing network is the same as television. In Iran, due to the critical influence that exists, it is said that radio and television must be exclusively controlled by the government according to the constitution. This is currently being enforced, but the home viewing network is now a completely different medium that is presented in a different format. Entrusting the supervision and licensing of this medium to the national broadcasting organization is completely unprofessional and incorrect.

In fact, the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution intended to extend the monopoly of radio and television to some extent to the home entertainment network and expand the scope of censorship through the management of the national broadcasting network, while the national broadcasting network has lost its influence and is severely weakened. The national broadcasting network has been struggling for years in the production of series and entertainment programs, and has lost a significant portion of its media authority.

It should be emphasized that the cultural sphere in Iran is facing a complete legal distortion and the main reason for this distortion is government organizations. The political infrastructure of Iran is not willing to accept and believe the cultural realities of the country. In society, the cultural sphere belongs to the people; they are the ones who read and write books, read and write newspapers, produce films, paintings, and poetry. In fact, it is these people who produce and consume cultural products in all areas.

Cultural goods are not like oil and gas reserves that only the government has control over; however, due to a lack of understanding of the country’s cultural situation and a lack of acceptance by officials, they constantly impose regulations that are not compatible with the current situation and constantly create various legal conflicts, and as this situation progresses, the level of government control and control over the cultural sphere decreases, and this decision is a clear example of one of these laws.

Some conservative media outlets, with accusations such as “cultural invasion” and “capitalist indoctrination”, are calling for increased surveillance over the production, content, and broadcasting of TV series on home networks. On the other hand, supporters of home networks see this as an attempt to regain complete monopoly over the media by the state and specifically the national broadcasting organization. Can the government’s monopoly, particularly through the national broadcasting organization, be considered beneficial for the people and the culture of the country in the realm of home entertainment?

Unfortunately, the government does not provide much opportunity for the private sector to strengthen and grow in all periods. The public sector should focus on activities that the private sector cannot, such as infrastructure, strategic and national security, but other areas such as film and television production should be left to the private sector. Whenever governments have intervened in the film and television industry, the result has been failure. Therefore, the public expectation is that the government not only does not create obstacles for the private sector, but also takes steps to encourage and strengthen them.

The monopolistic project in the past decades has not been able to produce reasonable and positive results in any field. Monopoly has not only been a factor for growth and strengthening of an industry or sector, but also a factor for weakening qualities. As an example, we can see the current state of the automotive industry as a result of the monopolistic behavior of Saipa and Iran Khodro.

On the other hand, monopolies and restrictions imposed on platforms and home display networks can create a ground for the shutdown or suspension of VOD services; an event that, if it occurs, can cause significant financial damage to the film and television industry of the country.

The controlling gaze of managers who see the growth of the private sector as a threat to the voice of the media, prefer to bring down this emerging medium and align its productions with the standards of television audits. This means directing Iranian audiences towards Turkish and American TV series and films that are broadcast and watched without the control of the government sector in Iranian society. The ultimate result is the destruction of a significant part of Iranian cinema and the unemployment of thousands of skilled individuals who have been struggling to survive for years.

The law does not assign the responsibility of regulation to a specific institution and the efforts of the media to act as a “regulator” of content and interventions by “satraps” does not seem logical to a great extent. Furthermore, the chaos in the field of producing TV series in the future can have significant negative effects on this industry.

This resolution puts diversity and relative freedom in choosing content at risk, as the organization of radio and television is trying to regulate artistic content in line with its own “specific codes of conduct” through more “protection” and control.

Furthermore, keep in mind that “authoritarianism” of the media has never been beneficial for the people and the culture of society, nor will it bring any profit for this government institution. The sphere of soft power influence will be reduced and its effectiveness will be limited. The point to note about the domestic broadcasting network is that it belongs to the private sector. In such a situation where the media cannot handle the responsibilities placed upon it, how can it manage this sector?

According to the statements of the Deputy for Business Development and Market Regulation, serious economic violations have been reported in some areas of home entertainment, which have greatly weakened the competitive ability of other competitors in the content production sector. Is this claim logical in the field of “cultural economy” and was there no preparation for auditing the home entertainment network? How much have such discussions influenced the recent decision of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution?

A few days ago, the President spoke some hopeful words among the companies of knowledge-based companies. He said, “The conditions should not be such that a researcher and producer say that I have no market for my knowledge-based product, which is also capable of commercialization, but at the same time, various devices import the same product from outside the country.”

Perhaps the President’s intention behind this reminder, accompanied by the warning “no institution should ever do this”, is the interference of influential figures in the government and quasi-governmental institutions in this matter. These actions, in addition to directly affecting the utilization of the achievements of knowledge-based companies, have also become a barrier to the development of knowledge-based activities in the country.

In addition to the structural and bureaucratic obstacles mentioned by the President, knowledge-based companies have faced a major challenge in recent years. Their first competitor has been the government and governing institutions; institutions that see their primary role as “regulation” or “regulatory” and their secondary role as competing with private sector knowledge-based companies and startups.

Prominent faces of this performance can be seen in the competition between the national broadcasting organization and the home entertainment network. This is contrary to the opinions of the president and is progressing to cause problems for a part of the cultural and artistic community of the country. As a clear example, “Television” is a platform that has been active in the field of home entertainment for years, while also being a part of the structure of the national broadcasting organization.

If the issue of “monopoly” and “dominant powers” has been a concern for “Satra” and “Radio and Television Organization”, such a problem can also occur within the organization itself, which for decades has had complete monopoly over the country’s audio and visual platforms and has produced results that we are witnessing now, leading to the audience’s turning away from the radio and television and migrating towards satellites and virtual space.

On the other hand, according to the statements of the deputy of SATRA, which has been mentioned as an achievement of this institution, 374 platforms in the country have successfully obtained a license from SATRA, 67 of which are active in the field of VOD. Therefore, it cannot be said that this is an exclusive market and subscribers have been affected by such a space. If there have been any violations, they have been related to the performance of SATRA, whose main and initial policy since 1394 has been “development of indigenous and national media industry” and also “supervision over their content”.

According to statements by some government officials, platforms only have a commercial, economic, and project-based approach to cultural affairs. In your opinion, what role should governments play in safeguarding the cultural values of their respective countries, and is this role more of a custodial or supervisory nature in other countries?

A few days ago, the Iranian Foreign Minister, in a meeting with the South Korean Foreign Minister, mentioned South Korea’s financial debt to Iran and told him that if this behavior continues, it is even possible that Iranian television will no longer broadcast South Korean series because South Korea has not fulfilled its obligations. He emphasized that the South Korean Foreign Minister has asked him to not sever the cultural ties between the two countries.

Although Amir Abdollahian highlighted the peak of poverty in Iran’s foreign diplomacy, he also had an interesting point; which countries have become leaders in the “cultural economy” in the world and what incomes they bring to their treasury. The export of TV series, along with other cultural products, has been added to the system of exporting goods and services in the world for a long time, and among them, there are countries that earn billions of dollars annually through this method.

This issue clearly demonstrates that governments use all available potential and capacities to advance their regional and international policies, and this calculated plan is implemented by many governments around the world. However, these successes are dependent on the freedom of companies and cultural institutions in these countries, which has been made possible by the facilitation of governments instead of their domination in the cultural sector.

In the midst of all this, America is still at the forefront of television series production and for decades now, American TV shows have found a large audience in many countries around the world, either on television screens or computer screens. However, it seems that with a delay of several decades, other countries have also entered this field.

Statistics show that the income of film companies, especially the company “Netflix” which is equivalent to “Filimo” in our country, has increased by at least 2 times in the years 2020 and 2021, simultaneously with the spread of the coronavirus and the beginning of nationwide quarantines in many countries.

Turkey says that by 2023, its income from this sector will reach at least one billion dollars. The Turkish newspaper “Daily Sabah” reported that in 2019, the revenue from the sale of Turkish series in more than 150 countries worldwide reached around 500 million dollars. However, the important point is that not all of this country’s income comes from its series.

In these countries, due to the popularity of Turkish series and culture, the sales of other Turkish goods and services have also increased. After the broadcast of these series, the sales of some Turkish goods in these countries have increased and Turkish tourism has faced an 80% growth. These achievements of Turkey have even caused concern for countries like Saudi Arabia, which accuses Turkey of neo-Ottomanism.

But besides Turkey, other competitors also have their hands on the fire in this field and are seeking to gain “soft power” through the use of “cultural economy”. “Soft power” is the acquisition of superiority and control over others through peaceful means.

The data from the South Korean Statistical Center also shows that the employment growth rate in the entertainment and leisure sector of this country has been over 27% between the years 2009 and 2019; while this rate in the industrial sector of South Korea, as the driving force of the country’s economy, has only been 20%. A 5.5% growth in the sales of consumer products such as cosmetics, clothing, and food has been achieved in the cultural sector of this country. South Korea’s income in this sector is equivalent to the $11 billion income of Iran’s oil in 2019.

These successful achievements in the field of cultural economy have been made possible under the support of governments for film institutions and various platforms, and with a facilitative approach and providing suitable business environment, growth and development have been achieved.

“Good interaction between “economic diplomacy” and “cultural diplomacy” has led to the formation of a trend in which governments try to expand their cultural hegemony and increase their country’s income by utilizing the capacities of media and extensive television networks.”

Thank you for the opportunity you have given us to use the peace line.