The BBC Persian Service V (By Dr. M. Torfeh)

Later on, Ambassador Radji, also voices his direct complaint. On
Wednesday November 29, 1978, he writes in his diary:
“I send off a letter of protest to the BBC in which I say that, being
able now to monitor the Persian Service’s transmission, the
Embassy is “frankly astonished at the undisguised bias that is an
ever-present feature of its broadcasts and the compromising light in
which they place the Government effort to restore stability.”69
Radji then gives insight into other Iranians of influence who were getting
together to put pressure on the BBC’s Persian Service. The next day,
Thursday November 30 he writes:
“Seyyed Hussein Nasr, the new head of the Empress’s Private
Bureau comes to see me at the office. Although he doesn’t quite
say so, I gather he is in London to make use of his university
contacts to enlist pressure from academic circles against the BBC.”
70
Another anti-BBC campaigner is the Iranian millionaire, David Allainace.
Radji writes in his memoirs of November 6 1978 that:
“David Alliance, a successful Iranian businessman, now resident in
Manchester, comes to tell me that, through his influential contacts
in the business community in London, he is bringing pressure on to
the BBC to tone down their Persian broadcasts.” 71
The BBC correspondent in Iran is also put under pressure. On December
1, 1978 Radji write that the Foreign Minister writes to inform him that:
“The BBC representative has been summoned to the Ministry
tomorrow to explain his misrepresentation of facts in reporting the
money transfers. For your information his expulsion seems
probable.”72
So, it is clear that official pressure was being put on the BBC Persian
Service to tone down its reporting on the events that led to the revolution.
However, despite the regular meetings with the Iranian Ambassador and
despite their attempts to keep relations with Iranian officials amicable, in
69 (Ibid, p 269)
70 (Ibid, p270)
71 (Ibid, p252)
72 (Ibid, p271)
Radji’s account of events and meetings there does not seem to be any
attempts by the BBC at appeasing the Shah or Iranian officials. BBC
standards of journalism are always referred to as being the guide for all
broadcasts. Even top British officials such as the Foreign Minister, David
Owen, deny they can have any influence over the BBC out put as we saw
above. Ambassador Radji, who had always tried to keep good relations
with the BBC as can be read from his memoirs, shows in his recollection
of 28 April 1978 -- when he met Gerald Mansell of the BBC and his
colleagues -- why Iranian officialdom was expecting more from the BBC
than others:
“I say that what comes out of the BBC, or for that matter other
foreign Persian language broadcasts such as those of Radio
Moscow, Radio South Yemen, or Radio Iran courier… is nothing
to decide the destiny of Iran. There is however, one distinguishing
factor about the BBC. While other Persian language transmissions
are honest in their desire to see the overthrow of the regime in Iran,
the BBC, which is quick to boast its independence and impartiality,
remains the broadcasting agency of a country that is a military ally
of Iran. It is an agency which is directly financed by the British
Government, with the length of each foreign language broadcast
determined in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office.” 73
According to the same entry BBC’s objective reporting is stressed:
“Mansell reiterates the BBC’s impartiality and says there has never
been an occasion when only the views of the regime‘s opponents
were given. Statistics are produced to prove the claim to
impartiality. Of course they admit mistakes may have been
committed, but the BBC cannot engage in a sort of “positive
reporting” favored by the Eastern block countries.” 74
Indeed Radji himself on several occasions had tried to convince the Shah
and the Prime Minister, Amir Abass Hoveyda that the BBC reporting was
indeed impartial. A few days after Shah’s visit to Washington, Radji
write on November 25 1977:
73 (Ibid, p173)
74 (Ibid p 174)
“I send a long and carefully documented cable in reply to an
enquiry by Hoveyda, in which I say that, after a thorough
examination of the BBC’s coverage of HIM’s visit to Washington,
I do not share the opinion that the BBC showed bias or hostility.” 75
Towards the end of the era of Shah’s rule, anger with the BBC rises
almost on a daily basis. BBC’s crucial role in reporting detailed events of
the revolution -- as registered in Ambassador Radji’s book -- show
clearly that the Shah is much angered by BBC’s reporting that there were
two million demonstrators and he particularly dislikes the main BBC
reporter, Andrew Whitley, and wishes to serve an expulsion order on him.
Radji says he advised against it. Towards the end, for instance on
December 19 1978, just two months before the revolution, Radji’s
account is revealing about the extent of pressure put on the BBC by the
Iranian Foreign Minister, Amir Khosrow Afshar:
“At 11:30 Sir Michael Swann, Chairman of the BBC comes to
[Amir Khosrow] Afshar’s suite at Coleridge’s, and the next one
and a half hours are devoted to singling out for Sir Michael’s
consideration instances, some genuine, others less so, of BBC bias
and particularly against the Iranian regime. Sir Michael, a soft
spoken, pipe-smoking person of academic appearance, is
understandably defensive.” 76
Only one day earlier, Afshar, in a meeting with British diplomats, had
described the BBC “as bad as Radio Moscow.” (p288) Other supporters
of the Shah also see a major role for the BBC in bringing the Shah’s
government to heal. The German historian William Engdahl describes
the role of the BBC in the 1979 revolution as “very similar” to the
previous times when it led to the downfall of Reza Shah and then
Mossadeq’s government. With this background Engdahl write:
“The British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language
broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC 'correspondents'
sent into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the
Shah. The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda
platform inside Iran during this time. The British governmentowned
broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah's
government an equal chance to reply. Repeated personal appeals
from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result. Anglo-American
75 (Ibid p125)
76 (p289)
intelligence was committed to toppling the Shah. The Shah fled in
January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been flown into
Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive theocratic
state to replace the Shah's government.”77
However, during the years that led to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the
relationship between the BBC Persian Service and millions of prorevolutionary
Iranians changed drastically. BBC Persian Service was
now highly trusted and liked by the ordinary people. Gone were the days
when the BBC Persian broadcasts were just for intellectuals. Now the
BBC had gained mass appeal. The image of the BBC changed in the
collective perception of the population. It was no longer the voice of
“British Imperialism” but a trusted friend. At home and abroad millions
of Iranians were listening to the BBC to find out the latest development.
It broadcast details of demonstrations, meetings and opposition
statements. It was the first media from which that famous demonstration
slogan “death to the Shah” was reported.
BBC World Service has argued openly, especially since the 1990 when it
was led by John Tusa that “cultural diplomacy” was an inherently
worthwhile activity for the British public service broadcaster to pursue.
He insisted also that cultural diplomacy provided by the World Service
was exceptionally good value for money. In Conversation with the
World, John Tusa, then the Director General of the BBC WS pointed out
that:
“We have 120 million regular listeners to our broadcasts. There
are many millions more who listen to local relays of our
broadcasts. At an all-up cost of £120 million in 1988, we deliver
our message at a cost of two pence per listener per week every
year.” 78
For John Tusa, one of its most determined defenders, the BBC WS has
never been “propaganda”, but journalism equally relevant to populations
all over the world, regardless of information environment in their
respective societies. 79And, the BBC WS does not hide the fact that it has
to take into consideration Government’s international priorities. It says in
its own web site:
77 (A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, pages 171-174,
Published by Pluto Press Ltd. 1992 and 2004)
78 (Cited in: Brian Mc Nair, “News and Journalism in the UK”, pp148-9, Routledge 2003)
79 (Ibid, p150)
“The Foreign Office funds the BBC World Service. While the
World Service has complete editorial and managerial
independence, we are able to gain an understanding of the
international priorities of the UK Government as one component
(though not the sole determinant) of setting our strategy. Therefore,
we engage in regular sharing of information with the FCO.”80
There is also a more general benefit as defined in the BBC web site:
“At the same time, the BBC is a powerful global showcase for
British culture, talent and creativity, through BBC Worldwide,
which markets BBC brands, programs and TV channels across the
world. It exposes millions of people to the highest quality British
entertainment, informational, and educational output. In so doing,
it generates both esteem for the UK’s creativity, as illustrated by
the dozens of awards and other accolades it receives, and
significant financial returns.”
80 (The Foreign and Commonwealth Office/BBC World Service Broadcasting Agreement, June 17th
2002)

Nevertheless,the BBC is an extended arm of the British foreign office and more than willing and committed to carry out more than the occasional manipulation /disinformation / misinformation or whatever necessary to promote British interests. Mixing up truth and disinformation is an old trick that usually works in creating false realities and perceptions to ready and justify a public or political move. In case of Iran... Iranians always should distrust the BBC, and they should always keep in mind, that the BBC as the tool of the MI6, has been, is and shall always be after promoting short and long term British interests by manipulating or seducing a few hundred naive and in diaspora living Iranians,or even a few hundred thousand upper middle class Iranians in Iran by hoping to echo their reactions as an authentic Iranian general perception. Listen and watch them if you have to but always be aware who they are and what they represent.