´óÏó´«Ã½

It's no surprise '´óÏó´«Ã½' reporters have been detained - the reports from John Leyne, before and after the election, were highly biased and laden with innuendo. What went out on ´óÏó´«Ã½ Persian is anybody's guess.

If ´óÏó´«Ã½ want their reporters to travel around without interference, perhaps they should be lobbying for a separation of the Foreign Office funded activities, and a re-naming of their division, maybe 'Voice of Britain.'

Perhaps the headline and content of this item are at odds.

Mr Maziar is called (within the text) both a contributor (to Panorama) and an independent film maker.

No one wishes to have people gaoled for no good reason anywhere but I do wish the ´óÏó´«Ã½ would refrain from its implicit ant-Iran style. We know the regime is not up to the standards of an ideal world but then there are few countries that can claim that anywhere, least of all the UK, the USA, Israel and any number of other critics of Iran.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This is very bad.
This film producer must be very careful with Islamic nations.They are all conservatives.
But what to do.As long as ,there is no alternative sources of energy for day today,massives uses from Ato Z,means of transport,for industries,for cooking purposes,we have to depend on it from Major shares from Middle east and from Russia.
Hereafter,whoever sends reporters,editors,journalists,photo graphers,news makers,documentary film makers are to be covered by a permanent,world security agencies.
Then only, these type of undemocrative actions will be moniterd,checked,and be stopped.
Hope for immediate release from Iran prision.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

If he's Iranian and he's involved in making anti Iranian films, do you expect Iran to give him a medal. It's only in Britain that it's acceptable to make films detrimental to ones own country.

The leaders of Iran are not very nice people.

This guy has just been imprisoned, other people are flogged bloody with electric cables then strangled slowly to death by being hanged from a mobile crane - all done in public. Some of those subject to this treatment have been children (by UK or UN standards).

I thought your policy towards regimes like Iran, Taleban etc was to be impartial - how come you can take sides regarding this guy?

(All the same, I hope he is freed)

I'm sorry the guys been taken and I really do hope he gets out soon.

But i can't help but feel that the foreign office funded ´óÏó´«Ã½ Persia is the reason your organisation is treated with such hostility by the regime.I'm thinking in particular of certain allegations (too ridiculous to repeat) levelled at the beeb during the protests

A british media organisation broadcasting in persian to Iranians in total contravention to the wishes of the Iranian government is inevitably going to be seen as a hostile act.

If the government wants to broadcast to Iranians let them do it as the British Government Channel & remove the ´óÏó´«Ã½ branding, before the corporation or more likely its employees get sucked into something really nasty.

´óÏó´«Ã½ Persia should be thought through again; if it ever was.

Persia? And this is not provocative?

However, the man must be found and his state of health ascertained. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ should not desert him now.

It is not suprising that ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists get arrested. The output of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is so biased against the legitimately elected government of Iran.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ needs to learn some basics of journalism. It is not the case for instance that the young vocal, web savvy residents of Tehran can be equated as being representative of the political aspirations of the country as a whole.

This may intrigue Iran-watchers and indicate Maziar Bahari's prominence in Iranian society. These are quotes from an interview in November 2008 for the New Statesman. Mr Bahari is interviewing Akbar Etemad, the shah's chief atomic energy adviser.

"Q Could you tell us about the history of Iran's nuclear technology?

A When Dwight Eisenhower initiated his Atoms for Peace programme in 1953, Iran was one of the first countries to receive a small nuclear reactor. It was primarily used for university research. Then, in the early 1970s, the shah came to the conclusion that Iran should develop its nuclear technology. We needed nuclear power plants to generate electricity: the population was increasing and people were using more electricity than before.

and later

Q Did the shah ever tell you that he may have wanted to build nuclear weapons?

A I always suspected that part of the shah's plan was to build bombs. So I came up with a plan to dissuade him. I asked the shah if I could spend a few hours every week teaching him about nuclear technology. I thought he should know enough about nuclear energy to know the dangers of a bomb. At the end of the sixth month I asked him, "So now that you have a good grasp of the technology, what direction do you want to take? Do you want to use it for peaceful purposes or to build bombs? I have to know that in order to plan it."

We talked for about three hours, and the shah told me his ideas about Iranian defence strategy. He thought that Iran's conventional army was already the most powerful in the region, and believed that Iran didn't need nuclear weapons at that moment. He also realised that if Iran developed nuclear weapons, the Europeans and the Americans wouldn't co-operate with it. But I think that if the shah had remained in power he would have developed nuclear weapons because now Pakistan, India and Israel all have them."

****

Perhaps the answer to the second question has some bearing on what is being witnessed now.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

hes showing watz going on in his own country iran.
theres nothing wrong about it.

hope he get freed soon.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is doing a great job trying to report a very tricky situation in Iran with intrepid journalists risking their lives to provide the unadulterated truth. The Iranian government is losing its nerve. By arresting competent and highly regarded journalists, it is showing total callous disregard for civilized behaviour. In fact the regime is isolating itself. President Ahmadinejad cannot brook criticism. How long can he survive? If and when he loses the support of the Ayatollah, his days are mumbered!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

No totalitarian regime will tolerate a free press. It is regarded as an alternative and dangerous power base (information=power). In a coup, some of the first buildings occupied will be TV and radio stations. Journalists are automatically suspect, regardless of their previous statements or writing, simply because they are in a position to reveal information that may not be the regime's preferred "truth". The regime is paranoid; if jounalists convey the truth as they see it they are "enemies of the people" and if they know the truth and do not convey it they must be "agents of foreign powers" pretending to be loyal to the regime while gathering intelligence.

I know that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is both an international and domestic service provider, but I think that those overseas 'viewers / readers / listeners' of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ have a view that would not be wholly held by its domestic audience.

I could point to another blog that attracted a huge amount of responses - changes to the International Pages, 1, 2, 3 and 4 as to why this is the case, but any regular posters will no doubt remember that debacle.

I don't often see how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ report overseas, but only how they are portrayed domestically, and in the main, I watch and rate the ´óÏó´«Ã½ News output highly. Their use of local people in the news is, to my mind, a positive. As this blog suggests, "As a journalist, Maziar was only concerned with covering the issues and views of other people, not to let any personal preference become part of the story", and that is the job of a reporter - to report the facts.

The fact that he is Iranian, and has been reporting Iranian issues within Iran is a matter for the Iranian Govt to deal, however, he was working for, or had (in the past) worked for, the ´óÏó´«Ã½. Since the Iranian Govt are at odds with the ´óÏó´«Ã½, it would seem that this arrest and subsequent incarceration is a tit-for-tat action. I hope this is resolved in the same way as the Roxana Saberi incident earlier this year and becomes no more serious.

As a Canadian / Iranian, it is a matter for the Canadian authorities.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

In Iran torture is an everyday occurrence, an everyday fear. A state that practices kidnapping on it's own citizens and visitors.

Walrus I don't think it's particularly provocative to call the service "´óÏó´«Ã½ Persia", considering it broadcasts in Persian, a language widely spoken throughout central Asia, not just Iran.

Do you happen to know anyone who feels provoked by the name? Thought not.

#21

I agree that the name, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Persia, has been around for a long time and is not, of itself, provocative. However ´óÏó´«Ã½ Persia does have form and that may indeed be provocative.

I have to agree also that it is no surprise that ´óÏó´«Ã½ staff were detained. It is a real shame that the so called "impartiality" of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ that is proudly boasted about by the network is so lacking.

I would have to say that this lack of impartiality is not limited to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ but is indemic throughout the journalistic profession, along with a complete lack of any real investigative journalistic endeavour.

I was looking today at discussions about Northern Iraq and it would seem that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has managed to create a new country which is on none of the maps I have seen. Could someone explain to me when Kurdistan was added to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Geopolitical Map of the world and who made the decision to add it?

I know that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is both an international and domestic service provider, but I think that those overseas 'viewers / readers / listeners' of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ have a view that would not be wholly held by its domestic audience.

I could point to another blog that attracted a huge amount of responses - changes to the International Pages, 1, 2, 3 and 4 as to why this is the case, but any regular posters will no doubt remember that debacle.

I don't often see how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ report overseas, but only how they are portrayed domestically, and in the main, I watch and rate the ´óÏó´«Ã½ News output highly. Their use of local people in the news is, to my mind, a positive. As this blog suggests, "As a journalist, Maziar was only concerned with covering the issues and views of other people, not to let any personal preference become part of the story", and that is the job of a reporter - to report the facts.

The fact that he is Iranian, and has been reporting Iranian issues within Iran is a matter for the Iranian Govt to deal, however, he was working for, or had (in the past) worked for here the ´óÏó´«Ã½. Since the Iranian Govt are at odds with the ´óÏó´«Ã½, it would seem that this arrest and subsequent incarceration is a tit-for-tat action. I hope this is resolved in the same way as the Roxana Saberi incident earlier this year and becomes no more serious.

As a Canadian / Iranian, it is a matter for the Canadian authorities.

Hmm! Odd!

I am surprised at some of the criticisms here. However, I may also be the victim of my own naivety.

One thing I find strange is this sentence at the end of each report on Iran, "The poll was won by incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad." I believe the dispute in Iran is about that exactly. There seems to be a lot of doubt as to whether he won the poll or not.

I think it would be more accurate to report, "The election was awarded to incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad." Part of the West's problem in this respect is that many believe G W Bush enjoyed the same favour over A Gore in 2000.