Who Can You Trust Reporting on a Closed Country?

How can journalists responsibly report on countries to which they have very little access? How can they break beyond barriers to produce good reporting? And more importantly, to what extent can we, as readers, trust stories about such sensitive nations in the news media?

Last week, the International Center for Journalists provided an extraordinary chance for many foreign correspondents to try to answer these questions in a discussion on Iran.

They listened to a variety of Iranian scholars and journalists who spoke about ways to get their readers to understand Iran beyond Ayatollahs, veiled women, ambitious nuclear plans, the 1980 hostage crisis, and its controversial President.

In my experience with journalists who cover Iran, I have found that one of the major obstacles they face in producing accurate, fair, and comprehensive reports is procuring background information.

The information they rely on is mostly provided by Iranian exiles, think tanks (mainly in Washington), Iran scholars and, to an extent, Iranian sources who feel comfortable sharing their stories with foreign journalists -- people who sometimes risk their lives to share their knowledge, insights and analysis on the ground.

Unfortunately, this method of gaining context has become problematic due to politically polarized sources who tend to filter information through different lenses and provide a version of truth that in many cases has nothing to do with what is happening in Iran. To illustrate this, I will share a few examples:

There is no doubt that since Ahmadinejad coming into office, his insufficient economic policies have caused tough times for the Iranian people, who have suffered from high inflation, unemployment and political repression. Numbers support these facts. But I was amazed by the analysis of one of the participants, an American scholar who has written a book on Iran and who had just arrived from Tehran. She said that just six months after Ahamdinejad entered office in 2005, $200 billion of capital fled Iran to other countries. Two hundred billion dollars? How is this possible? Nobody asked about the source and accuracy of the number, which I have heard floating around Iranian scholars' discussions.

I was also surprised when another scholar completely denied a fatwa was issued by Iran's Supreme Leader about Iran's nuclear energy program in 2004, calling nuclear weapons unacceptable under Islam. At the time, this fatwa was on the front pages of Tehran's newspapers and was one of the reasons behind the Iranian leader's defiance in pursuing the controversial nuclear dossier.

I was, however, not surprised when another scholar completely denied the existence of the women's movement in Iran, right before a scheduled talk given by a woman activist from Tehran who is closely involved in this movement. In her talk, she described how women in Iran are battling with the hardliners to change Iran's laws. Despite what the "armchair scholars" in the U.S. may think, she explained that Iranian civil society organizations resist against extensive amounts of intimidation by the government, lobby different layers of power and try to mobilize people with their message of change.

The key issue is that these days in Tehran, any kind of information highlighting the insufficiency of Ahmadinejad's government seems believable. On the other hand, the fear of a possible U.S. attack has led many people concerned about another fiasco in the Middle East to filter the information through certain lenses that do not reflect the truth and can be misleading if journalists take it at face value. Iran is not just Ahmadinejad and hardliners, and without understanding different sources of power it is nearly impossible to give a clear image of one of the most complex societies in the Middle East.

Journalists' very limited access to Iran, which has been reinforced by the Islamic regime during the past few years, has not only blurred reality and produced a series of myths about a country at the core of international concerns, but also has confused many of the scholars and academics who try to understand Iran from outside its borders. The ICFJ seminar was extraordinary in illustrating the peculiar circumstances of reporting on Iran and the challenges affecting the quality of our work.

Follow Omid Memarian on Twitter: www.twitter.com/omid_m

Comments

[Abroad]

A few steps to do good reporting about Iran would be to do the same as for Italy.

First ... go there a few times! Believe me Iran is not North Korea, you can get a VISA and move quite freely in the country.

Second ... having thus gained some feeling for the place, you might want to acquire some notions of pharsi in order to be able to communicate with the locals. I freely admit I didn't go that far, however I don't make a living reporting about the place.

[dadw5boys]

BY A CLOSED COUNTRY ARE YOU REFERING TO HOMELAND SECURITY SHUTTING DOWN ACCESS TO FORGIEN MEDIA ON THE WEB, BLOCKING THIER SIGNAL WITH ELECTRONICS, OR JUST TAKING THEM OVER AND SHUTTING THEM DOWN THRU CORPORATE TAKE OVERS????

OR

DO YOU MEAN A CLOSED COUNTRY WHEN THE NEW REPORTED FROM THE BATTLE FEILD IS MONITORED AND APPROVED AND ANY JORUNALIST BEING ISOLATED, HELD AS A COMBANTANT IF THEY TRANSMIT ANYTHING UNAPPROVED???

Just want to get the meaning down of the term CLOSED COUNTRY!!

[mamacat]

I have seen pictures taken by private citizens who visited Iran. The pictures reveal a country different from what I was led to believe it would look like, although women did indeed have to wear headscarves.
I think that if private citizens can go to Tehran, then it should be possible for "journalists" also to go to Tehran. There are probably restrictions, but within the framework of the restrictions, people can go into the country. That we are getting reports from private citizens, but not from professional reporters, seems like a huge failure on the part of reporters.

I remember that reporters used to be able to go behind the Iron Curtain. Their reports reflected the difficulties they faced in reporting, but were nonetheless valuable. I myself went behind the Iron Curtain legally and openly, and just the experience of witnessing life there was unforgettable, and personall valuable.

We often complain that the American leaders, Bush and Cheney, might make different decisions if they had personal experience in the active-duty military. The same argument follows for the need to get first-hand knowledge of life in Iran. While there is still peace, we should learn who they are, and not rely on the reports of so-called think tanks.

[Bluedog12]

Faux news has done a good job here in the US since the Patriot Act was put in place.

[MagisterLudi]

"The information they rely on is mostly provided by Iranian exiles, think thanks (mainly in Washington), Iran scholars and, to an extent, Iranian sources."

Well, this seems to be a fairly good variety of sources. Whom else should the journalists consult? Supreme Leader's Press office? It is ironic that the complaint about exiles' biased point of view emanates from... an Iranian exile. The difference: his more benevolent bias towards Iran. Little else.

There's a cognitive dissonance somewhere in there.

[noo]

The piece you are missing is that many of the people in exile have their own personal ambitions tainting the version of their story. For example -- "Overthrow the Iranian government so I can become the prime minister and my family the cabinet." These people have often not been living in Iran for more than 30 years and have no idea what is happening there. They are watching CNN and Fox news in order to find out what is happening in Iran, and then telling the same stories back to Americans. These are the sources we relied on for Iraq, need I say more.
The piece that is missing is the voice of Iranians. However, I'd say most Iranian-Americans (the non-political, not in exile variety) are a great asset because many of them are still in contact with family members in Iran. Check out the National Iranian American Counsel to learn about one such group.

[dadw5boys]

I wornder if any of that $ 200 Billion in USA dollars was printed in Iran.

Regean approved the sell of printing presses to Iran but THEY LEFT THE U.S. $100.00 PRINTING PLATES IN THE PRESSES.

I often think the Company that went into Iran and built their Nucular Power Plant was allowed to do so because it would give someone a reson to attack them in the furture. Without that the only reason to attack Iran would be for their oil.

[MagisterLudi]

'Iran is not just Ahmadinejad and hardliners, and without understanding different sources of power it is nearly impossible to give a clear image of one of the most complex societies in the Middle East."

Agreed. Iran is a complex society.

However, the oppressive clique of whom Ahmadinejad is the figurehead dominates Iran politics and culture power in Iran today. Hence, they get the majority of reporting.

In contrast the women movement is weak, scared and operates largely on the fringes of Iranian society. It is highly doubtful that Iranian women rights moved an inch beyond that which was described by Professor Azar Nafisi in "Reading Lolita in Teheran."