****

Iran is a brutal theocratic dictatorship that executes minors, stones adulterous women to death, persecutes religious and ethnic minorities and murders and imprisons non-violent protestors for calling for free and fair elections.

Fareena Alam presenting on Press TV

It is also not exactly supportive of the UK’s struggle against Islamist extremism. The Iranian government is widely believed to have supplied Iraqi insurgents with many of the roadside bombs that killed British soldiers in Iraq, Iran’s leaders have also called for the extrajudicial murder of a British novelist and funded London-based radical Islamist outfits such as the comically misnamed Islamic Human Rights Commission.

One would think, therefore, that the British government would regard employees of the Iranian government as being less than ideal partners for the UK domestic ‘Preventing Violent Extremism’ programme.

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

One of the UK government’s flagship counter-extremism programmes is the Radical Middle Way (RMW) which was established with £460,000 of government money in 2005 by former members of Q-News magazine, namely Fuad Nahdi, Abdul Rehman Malik and Malik’s wife Fareena Alam.

Fareena Alam first shot to fame two days after the 9-11 when she told a former US ambassador in a now-notorious edition of BBC Question Time that the US had deserved for the attacks because of its support for Israel, which she described as a ‘terrorist’ state.

Of the resulting media furore, she later said that ‘I think I got picked on in the papers because I had tanned skin, I’m a Muslim, a woman and I was wearing a headscarf’ and that ‘If it was untimely, it was the BBC’s fault for running it two days after the attack’.

Despite this, Alam became one of the RMW’s most main public faces. She also chaired a number of the group’s public events, including one event in April 2008 that included Fuad Nahdi’s wife, Humera Khan, and Catherine Heseltine from MPACUK, an organisation which has been widely described as Anti-Semitic.

In around mid-2008, however, Alam joined Press TV, the Iranian government-run and –funded propaganda station, as a reporter. She immediately began producing a stream of blatantly one-sided TV pieces that parroted the Iranian government’s line.

For instance, in one story nominally about the Iraqi president’s visit to London, Alam concluded that “Maliki’s visit to London occurred on the day that British troops started to finally withdraw from Iraq after six years. Most Iraqis will be glad to see the back of them and if they return in business suits instead of jackboots, their welcome will be far from certain.”

Leaving aside her sweeping assumption that ‘most Iraqis will be glad to see the back of them’, it is striking that Alam used the word ‘jackboots’ in reference to British troops. As far as I am used ‘jackboots’ references are used almost solely to make Nazi comparisons. Does Fareena Alam really think that British troops are comparable with the Nazis? And if she does, what does she make of the totalitarian and undemocratic Iranian government that pays her wages?

Despite producing such anti-British propaganda on behalf of the Iranian government, Alam has remained one of the RMW’s public faces. For instance, in May 2009, she chaired an RMW event called ‘Wired Warriors for the soul of Islam’ featuring Muslim bloggers. This event was presumably funded through the £350,000 that the Department for Communities and Local Government gave to RMW during 6-month period from October 2008 to April 2009.

Alam, while working for the Iranian government, also remained closely involved in the RMW’s day-to-day administration. In April this year, for instance, she posted on the RMW’s facebook page to thank the group’s followers for RSVP-ing to the group’s upcoming events and telling them about RMW’s future plans:

Since starting work for Press TV, she has also written she written on the group’s facebook page that RMW had joined twitter, telling readers to “follow us” – by which she presumably means the RMW rather than Press TV:

Of course, the RMW could argue that Alam was not making these statements on behalf of the group and has been doing so without its knowledge. I don’t believe that this is the case however – RMW employees could hardly fail to notice that she is regularly posting in the group’s name on their popular facebook page.

And even if this is the case, then why is Alam also one of only 7 administrators in the group’s facebook page – one of its main points of contact with its youthful audience – if she is no longer seen as being part of RMW?

Now, I’m sure that Fareena is a lovely person in many ways. And I also appreciate that because her husband, Abdul Rehman Malik, is heavily involved in RMW, it is difficult for her to sever contact with the group.

At the same time, however, it is manifestly insane that an Iranian government employee, especially one who works for Tehran’s main English language propaganda outlet and who compares British soldiers to fascist storm-troopers, should be involved in running the UK’s most lavishly-funded counter-extremism programme.

Under the title “In London, Turkey’s Hizb ut-Tahrir protests secularism“, Press TV publishes an article which clearly demonstrates that they have no idea who Hizb ut-Tahrir are and, despite sending a reporter to their protest, can’t be bothered to find out; they think Hizb ut-Tahrir is a Turkish political party not a global Islamist movement.

Protesters from Turkey’s banned Islamic political group Hizb ut-Tahrir have staged a demonstration in front of the Turkish embassy in London.

Sucks to be Hizb ut-Tahrir – the only people writing about them are their own members, critics like us and the discredited media arm of a totalitarian regime which can’t even get basic details right.

I work at Press TV because it broadcasts the truth about what is happening in the world.

Says Roshan Muhammed Salih, Press TV’s head of news in London. A regular writer for the Iranian propaganda channel, he wrote in today’s Guardian’s Comment is Free defending what many of us would not even begin to comprehend defending: why he actually enjoys working for his Islamist – totalitarian – human rights abusing – homosexual executing – employer. Really.

He says:

The channel is willing to give a platform to legitimate actors whom the western media will not touch, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, while at the same time reporting what the authorities are saying.

So terrorist organisations that condone and encourage suicide bombings, the killing of innocent civilians (Jewish children are legitimate targets according to Hamas), propagate anti-Semitic filth, kill and maim political opponents, and are constructed and run by Islamist fascists are legitimate?

He does not stop there:

It is simply not fair to characterise Press TV as a mouthpiece for the Iranian government. It is true that we are state-funded (like the BBC World Service) but that does not mean we slavishly follow the Tehran line.

Salih’s right – he does not forcibly have to follow Tehran’s line. Otherwise why would he work there, right? Instead, he willingly and lovingly follows the Tehran line:

I believe it [the Islamic Republic of Iran] is a fundamentally decent government run by a fundamentally decent man [Ahmadinejad is a homophobe, holocaust ‘fact correcting’, Israel wiping - genocidist wanabe]. The Iranian government supports Islam [Islamism] and resistance movements [Hezbollah and Hamas] in the Islamic world and opposes western interference in the region [he would rather Saddam remain his neighbor?]. It also doesn’t go around invading sovereign nations, killing their people and occupying their countries [they get their puppet terrorist groups to do the dirty work]…

Moreover, many feel that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a corruption-free man of the people who speaks truth to power [he supposedly had more than 100% of votes in some provinces - he is accused of rigging the recent elections]. They like the fact that he looks un-presidential and that he spends most of his time with the poor and powerless…

I do not agree, however, with everything the Iranian government does. For example, I support the right to peaceful protest and the right of journalists to report freely.

So why does Salih not criticise in this article the Ahmadinejad government and the regime when they imprison journalists and aid workers, and kill protesters?

But wait! The Iranian government has reasons for doing what it does:

What everyone must understand is that Iran is a country under threat and countries under threat restrict freedoms. Western-sponsored wars, economic sanctions and destabilisation programmes have taken their toll. Iran’s institutions have not been allowed to develop in the same way that Britain’s have, so it is unfair to judge it by the same yardstick when we talk about freedom. That said, Iran remains a stable, peaceful country in a region of chaos and turmoil. Its people have more liberties than perhaps any other country in the Middle East and it has a government that rules with the consent of the majority. It is heading in the right direction.

Iran may be more democratic than other Middle Eastern countries in terms of elections. But can someone who completely opposes the Islamic Republic of Iran and what that means, stand for election? Of course not! We will judge and compare the Iranian regime by the same yardstick when we talk about freedom because we live in the 21st century, where every country and its rulers are subject to international human rights standards. And no – Iran does not have more liberties than any other Middle Eastern country – governments in that region have varying degrees of providing certain liberties for its citizens whilst denying others.

Salih also adds:

We are also regulated by Ofcom, which means we must stick to strict broadcasting regulations regarding balance, due impartiality and objectivity.

Does Salih honestly think Press TV is any where near the standards of other broadcasters like the BBC? Press TV is light years away. Impartial, objective and true? Have a look at Press TV’s website and its coverage of Iran’s post election unrest. Press TV conveniently chose to ‘objectively’ portray the post-election protests and violent deaths as a conspiracy by Western powers in interfering in the internal affairs of Iran – the Tehran line.

Salih ends with:

And Press TV is a young channel with a minuscule budget… So if the anti-Iran brigade really want the country and its institutions (such as Press TV) to reform, they should call for an end to economic sanctions, military threats and destabilisation programs. Above all, they need to engage with us.

Press TV is not a mouthpiece for the Iranian government. Oh wait it is – it is one of the country’s ‘institutions’, of which all are controlled by this nasty so-called ‘Islamic’ regime.

The only ‘engaging’ we will do with Press TV is to prove what a joke it is. At least Salih is honest enough to admit where his sympathies and admiration truly lies. I guess Salih’s position is not so surprising after all.

When Press TV was launched two years ago, Yvonne Ridley, one of the station’s presenters, was effusive in her praise of her paymasters: “I see it as an antidote to Fox TV that will give a different perspective to the coverage that you get from the mainstream media. It’s not shock TV, tabloid TV or propaganda promoting reactionaryism.”

While Press TV is clearly light years away from Fox in political terms, the channels could be described as simply two sides of the same coin when it comes to the way they manipulate their viewers. Ridley’s line of defence, that Press TV is neither a propaganda machine nor a proponent of shock or tabloid broadcasting, hasn’t really held up since the station’s launch – all the more so in the wake of its coverage of the Iranian elections.

He also destroys Press TV’s credibility argument by argument.

Of course, there are those defenders of Press TV who believe that only those free from sin ought to cast the first stone – including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who claims there is “scarcely … a media that does its duty correctly”, and that “our media should be a standard bearer of peace and stability”, as well as a counterweight to the “propaganda” of western news outlets.

I’ve seen for myself the major discrepancies between reporting on western stations and some of their counterparts in the Middle East. While I don’t have a problem with the markedly different terminology employed by, for example, al-Aqsa TV and the BBC, it is the underlying editorial line that can make a channel unpalatable and untrusted by viewers.

And

Press TV surrounds itself with controversial presenters and guests, to the discredit of both the individuals and the station as a whole. George Galloway’s pathetic performance against Dispatches’ David Henshaw was laughable in itself, but more disturbingly characterised Press TV’s worrying trait of obfuscation surrounding Muslims accused of wrongdoing, a habit its presenters can team with shifting blame on to Israel and supporters of Zionism.

Freedman also discusses his own experiences of appearing on Press TV.

I have had several dealings with Press TV, agreeing to be interviewed by various reporters in the belief that dialogue with interlocutors of any persuasion could only be a positive move: that as long as I was not coerced or censored in what I said, my input could prove useful to those watching the channel or reading the site. However, when I appeared on Lauren Booth’s weekly show, the blinkers came off and I realised quite how counterproductive playing any part in the Press TV pantomime actually was.

I had written an op-ed piece for the Jewish Chronicle, and Booth relayed her admiration of my article by telling me she was “surprised to read something that was true” in the Jewish Chronicle. The implication was clear: the Jewish Chronicle is full of lies.

She then proceeded to ask me, along with two other panellists, about our opinions on the viral email comparing photos of children in Gaza to Nazi-era photos of children in the Warsaw Ghetto. While we three guests roundly condemned the employment of such disingenuous analogies, she stuck to her guns, defending the email author’s right to draw such parallels – again, leaving the viewer in no doubt that to compare the situation in Gaza to the Holocaust is a perfectly acceptable way to view events in Israel and the occupied territories.

And his conclusion should be read by anybody vaguely considering having dealings with Press TV.

Booth is as entitled to her views as I am to mine. But for Press TV to claim impartiality and independence on one hand, yet toe the Iranian government party line and employ biased presenters and reporters on the other, gives the lie to any of their supporters’ statements that they are in any way reputable or to be taken seriously.

For all that there are clearly occasions when unacceptable bias pervades western media outlets and news organisations, such occurrences pale in comparison to the unabashed partisanship pumped out by Press TV round the clock. It can only be hoped that the actions of Kamm, Ferrari and others will be emulated by the station’s army of viewers around the world.

Amen.