PRESS TV’S LICENSE REVOKED BY OFCOM
PRESS STATEMENT
20th January 2012
OFCOM HAS REVOKED Press TV Limited’s Television Licensable Content Service licence. It means that the British public can no longer watch Press TV on BSkyB’s Sky platform. Press TV International has released the following statement:
The British government’s media regulatory body, Ofcom, has banned Press TV’s broadcast in the UK and removed the channel from the Sky platform without responding to a letter sent from Press TV’s CEO to Ofcom’s chief executive earlier this month.
This after Ofcom fined Press TV Limited in London a hundred thousand pounds for the channel’s airing of a 10-second news clip. At the same time, Ofcom made moves to revoke the license of Press TV Limited in the UK for what it called Press TV Limited’s lack of control over the channel’s broadcast. We asked Ofcom, if Press TV Limited did not have control over the broadcast, why was it getting fined; if it did have control, why would the license be revoked?
Ofcom’s contradictions are nothing new for Press TV. The British government’s tool to control the media has on several occasions changed its decisions regarding Press TV in its two-year campaign against the alternative news channel.
In response to Press TV’s complaints about Ofcom’s subservience to the British government and the monarchy, which have been a focus of Press TV’s critical coverage in recent years, Ofcom claims it is not a government organization. But there is every indication that it is. It gets both its authority and funding from the British government. Ofcom was created by an Act of Parliament and gets most of its funding from governmental grant-in-aid. Britain’s Office for National Statistics has also said Ofcom must be classified as a central government unit.
As a news channel broadcast in the UK, Press TV has shed more light on the British government’s domestic and foreign policies. It has aired critical views regarding Britain’s involvement in wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has also shown the close ties between the British Royal family and UK-founded monarchies in the Persian Gulf region, including the autocratic regimes in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, which have been oppressing their people for decades. Press TV has also provided critical coverage of the extravagant costs of Britain’s Royal Wedding at a time of great financial difficulty for ordinary Britons. The channel covered the 2011 unrest in Britain and the heavy-handed police crackdown, drawing the resentment of London’s ruling establishment.
Wikileaks cables have revealed that London and Washington are exploring ways to construct a case to silence Press TV. And, Ofcom, the media arm of the Royal family, exhausted all efforts to put an end to Press TV’s broadcasting in the UK. But it fails to grasp the reality of mass communication in the modern era and the impossibility of containing the flow of information. Press TV will do everything possible to make sure that its voice will definitely reach its audience in the UK.
They really are starting to treat us like babies. Always a sure sign democracy is seen as a growing problem by the ruling elites. But of course how could democracy survive the levels of monolpoly and wealth concentration of today. Levels the ongoing bail out is set to hugely exacerbate. In fact democracy is purely formal under capitalism and is allowed in the good times only. If democracy means anything it means the redistribution of wealth unless we truly believe that the vast majority would knowingly vote for impoverishment at the hands of a miniscule super wealthy elite. No, this kind of media censorship and manipulation is needed to prop up the kind of democracy capitalism offers.
TV is a powerful medium and there are attempts to control it and switch off voices and images considered undesirable.
I sometimes watch Press TV on the Internet and it is still possible to do so – I look for alternative information sources, as opposed to the wall-to-wall Western corporate imperialism in the media.
Another channel I sometimes watch is Roj TV, a Kurdish station broadcasting out of Denmark, which the Turkish government has been for years trying to have closed down as it is considered “terrorist” by Ankara. The station was fined as a result of a verdict given on January 10, but not closed down.
Drivel. All the more so when they start banging on about Ofcom being the media arm of the Royal Family.
Those of us who oppose the actions of the British establishment shouldn’t immediately jump into bed with a bunch of reactionaries from Iran just because they dislike American and British actions in the middle east as much as we do. Solidarity with the Tudeh, anyone?
“the autocratic regimes in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, which have been oppressing their people for decades”
Whilst covering up, and apologising for, the oppression in Iran.
“n 2009, the channel showed an interview with Maziar Bahari, a “Newsweek” journalist, who had been jailed in Tehran while covering mass protests against a disputed presidential election.
Mr Bahari said this interview had been conducted under duress and his captors had threatened him with execution unless he gave the answers he wanted. Last year, Ofcom imposed a fine of £100,000 on Press TV, reversing an earlier decision to revoke the channel’s licence.
As part of the investigation into this incident, Ofcom found that editorial decisions governing the channel were taken in Tehran. It wanted Press TV to be under the editorial control of the same company in London that held the broadcasting licence. Alternatively, the licence could have been transferred to Tehran.”
Oh, that’s from the Daily Telegraph, so I suppose it’s the Royal Family at work again.
Alasdair,
Opposing the OFCOM decision is not jumping into bed with reactionaries. Do you support the OFCOM decision? If not, why don’t you say so?
richsw,
I’m not really bothered either way by the Ofcom decision. But frankly, I’m not particularly concerned about PressTV being taken off the air – it’s a channel that exists solely to propagandise for an extremely repressive and reactionary regime. And just because some of the British left seem to have gotten into bed with them because they share a hatred of the British and American establishment doesn’t mean they’re worth defending.
Of course the people “not really bothered” by this suppression of speech by the state are the very same who faint in shock when private citizens yell loudly when Griffin gets invited on the BBC. There’s no need to like Press TV or the Iranian regime (yes, regime there I said it) and still find this decision absolutely wrong.
Whatever your view of Press TV it did at times broadcast some interesting stuff that the mainstream channels did not. We are all capable of seeing through the propoganda of Press TV and all the other channels for that matter. We should be against any attempt to close down a news channel. We dont need UK state sensorship.
Oh dear. What a shame. Never mind.
Press TV hasn’t been censored, though. It has fallen foul of the regulators on various technicalities and has had its licence revoked. Now, this particular revocation may be partly for political reasons, but any licensing system necessarily involves the possibility of licences being withdrawn.
Of course, one can take a libertarian position that anyone should have the right to broadcast anything on the airwaves, without any kind of licence. But in the case of TV, it is not hard to see where that would end up. It seems pretty clear to me that a licensing system is the lesser evil.
The Press TV statement is just ludicrous. If they are serious about trying to get their licence back, stuff like “Ofcom, the media arm of the Royal family” is not going to help. It just makes them a laughing stock.
this is a disgusting prelude to a war.
Disagreeing with the political use of a regulatory body to shut down a news channel opposed to the government does not mean one supports that channel – as Christian H has rightly pointed out.
I find PressTV hilarious in its own screwed up way – and sometimes interesting in that they do cover obscure and unpopular stores. They are kind of like an Iranian version of Fox News, but with delusions that they possess the fancy intellectualism and Guardian-reading liberal self-righteousness of Al Jazeera. That does not mean I support the government selectively enforcing and manipulating the regulatory body to silence them.
Neither does this mean I adopt a libertarian perspective that “regulation is wrong”. Ofcom is important in ensuring the broadcast infrastructure and resources are used effectively and rules are adhered to. This role does not (or at least, should not) entail political censorship.
my concern is not nessarily that press tv has lost licence its more that this sends a warning out to russia today, al jazeera eg really none of the news channels conform with british regulatory standards other than sky and bbc so could they take any of them off the air if they wanted?
So if Sky news fall foul of the regulatory system they would be taken off the air…..would they fuck.
A diabolical attack on freedom.
Those who are upset about Press TV’s licence being revoked really should take it up with the Iranian government. They were too mean to fork out 100k for the fine and too slow to set up some bureau in London to run the channel. Perhaps they thought that it wasn’t worth the money and bother to run a channel with small viewing figures?
However this royal interference in rights of broadcasting is the real scandal, and needs further investigation.
See here:- http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/royal-coup-de-grace/
Anyone remember the Western media outrage when the terrestrial licence of Venezuelan TV station RCTV was not renewed on expiry? Not even revoked mind, just not renewed; and they were free to continue broadcasting on cable.
On and on and on our media and our right wing bloggers went… media freedom… blah, blah… signs of dictatorship… blah, blah… undemocratic… etc, etc. What they didn’t say much about was that amongst many other breaches of their licence, RCTV not only supported the 2002 military coup that abolished all elected institutions and the courts – they directly participated in it. Whatever Press TV have or haven’t done, they haven’t called for the military overthrow of the Cameron government, or even demanded the execution of the Royal Family.
Spineless liberals! I wonder that the revolutionary left gives them the time of day.
Rosie, that was funny. No not the Royal element but the idea that Shiraz socialist could be a source of useful information!
@ Marko
“A diabolical attack on freedom.”
Er, yeah, a diabilical attack on the ‘freedom’ of a country which imprisons and tortures journalists and critics of the government, which hangs homosexuals and and which beats women for not covering up their hair, to have a propaganda broadcasting arm in another country and not to abide by the broadcasting regulations of that country.
Is there any regime of reactionary thugs you lot won’t make excuses for as part of your ingenious ‘progressive’ struggle?
But I had forgotten, Press TV has on occasion employed John Wight and George Galloway, among others. So obviously from that perspective this is an attack on the British working class and on international socialism. Shocking.
Mick Hartley,
No, this isn’t what’s being said:
i) the freedom being curtailed is the viewers’ freedom, not the Iranian state’s – there is no attacking of journalists, gays, etc on Press tv
ii) in a time when elements among the West’s rulers are seriously advocating war against Iran, you’re attacking Iranian broadcasters. Do you think the proposed war will, once again, be sold on progressive grounds – defending the rights of women? Will you be supporting the war?
“the freedom being curtailed is the viewers’ freedom, not the Iranian state’s – there is no attacking of journalists, gays, etc on Press tv”
Press TV is a broadcast arm of the same regime that does precisely those things, though.
“you’re attacking Iranian broadcasters.”
While Press TV broadcast a ‘confession’ of a journalist obtained under duress by the Iranian state. that was one of the reason it came to Offcom’s attention. You are not allowed to do that. I notce that that far more literal attacking of Iranian broadcaster doesn’t register with you. Torturing Iranian journalists is okay when it’s done by the Iranian government; punishing said government from broadcasting the resulting confession is somehow okay. Your apologism clearly has nothing to do with journalistic freedom.
Press TV has broken a number of Offcom regulations. If it had abided by them, it wouldn’t now be banned. Whose fault is that? Or do you think British broadcasting regulations should be altered to accomodate Press TV and the journalist-torturing government of Iran?
“There is no attacking of journalists, gays, etc on Press tv”
Press TV broadcast the ‘confession’ of a journalist obtained under duress. Leaving aside that it is illegal to broadcast such a thing in Britain, of course it is ‘attacking journalists’.
Mick Hartley,
No, I didn’t apologise for, or even comment on, anything done by the Iranian state. You’re interpreting what I said wrongly.
I asked if you support the drive to war with Iran. You didn’t answer, so I’m beginning to think you might…?
Press TV’s own account of the Bahari case makes very illuminating reading…. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/181711.html
No, I oppose any war on Iran AND I also oppose the grubby Press TV. It is possible to do both. My enemy’s enemy isn’t my friend, and I am quite glad it has had its licence withdrawn, as it deserved to be but which it could have avoided had it complied with the broadcasting regulations.
And you are delusional if you imagine that the presence of Press TV has somehow had any role whatever in preventing the build up in tensions towards war in recent times. It has made a mockery of the laws of the land it has been based it, and that is all – but that is quite enough regarding this action.
I’m glad to see the back of a channel which broadcasts propaganda obtained by torture. You, however, are evidently gutted you won’t be getting to tune in to more tortured journalists confessing to your woman-beating, gay-hanging heroes. And some people close to this site will obviously have to look elsewhere for employment. Which is obviously a terrible pity.
And of course Francis King chooses to put credence in the overseas propaganda arm of a regime that beats unconvered women, imprisons protesting trade unionists and hangs gay people. I mean, what’s not to trust about a regime like that?
I wonder if Andy or any of the trade unionists on here give any thought to how their trade union comrades in Iran are treated by the Iranian regime they are such keen apologists for. It appears they don’t give a shit. So much for ‘socialist unity’.
Mick – your excessive righteousness will be your undoing. Calm down, man! When I commented that it “makes very illuminating reading” I was referring to the fact that it starts with Protocol 7 of the Learned Elders of Zion. I know what that is the same as you do, and it does not reflect well on Press TV. Do please try to read more carefully before you go off on one. To suggest that I would ever “choose to beleive” (sic) Press TV is just silly.
Apologies, Francis, I jumped the gun.
It does seem like there is a good deal of trying to whitewash Press TV on here, which is both pointless, wrong and counter-productive from a left perspective IMO.
http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2011/06/saeed-pourheidar-1/
““The investigative judge raised five charges against me” ‘propagating against the regime,’ ‘assembly and collusion with the intent to overthrow,’ ‘disrupting public order,’ ‘insulting the president,’ and ‘insulting the sanctities and questioning Islamic orders.’ Judge Pirabbasi, the presiding judge of Branch 26 of the Revolutionary Court, sentenced me to five years in prison, a ten-year ban on journalistic activities and a payment of $3,000 in fines”
If Andy and co think it’s reasonable to jail someone for those insane charges, then presumably they wouldn’t object to Cameron and co having them jailed for insulting the prime minister etc. Except obviously they would. It would be rightly considered outrageous, and not just on here. But when it’s an Iranian journalist it’s happening to, there must be some way of viewing it as reasonable, eh?
Andy’s usual way is to cite the mere existence of insanely repressive laws in some countries as their own justification, so it would be along the lines of, “We may not like it but the Iranian regime takes these matters very seriously.” End of.
Mick Hartley: “Press TV is a broadcast arm of the same regime that does precisely those things, though.”
Well to be morally consistent, one should also ban television broadcasts from any country that has, when it ‘needed’ to, engaged in, eg, waterboarding, sexual torture in Iraq, medieval-type imprisonment as per Guantanamo… or, a bit closer to home, internment without trial for Irish political opponents, beating confessions from innocent people & then sentencing them to many years of imprisonment, rendering people to ‘third countries’ to be tortured, etc etc.
Only one problem with that, of course- nothing from the USA or the UK would be allowed on TV.
Mick Hartley quotes “Andy’s usual way” . Since I didn’t post this up, nor have I commented on this thread, I am surprised that a “usual way” had been established by me.
Noah
Which of the broadcasters in the US and UK do you have in mind that are (1) state-owned propaganda arms, and (2) have actually broadcasted, say, confessions obtained under duress by said state? Off you go and do your research.
Andy,
Thank you for replying. I said your ‘usual’ way. That suggests I was referring to something you have done on occasions previously. If you had only done it for the first time on here then it would hardly be sufficient to count as ‘usual’.
Since you are here, as a principled British trade unionist (and that I certainly do believe of you) can you explain why SU is publishing apologia for the propaganda arm of a regime that uses violence and imprisonment against trade unionists? It is quite possible to oppose warmongering against the Iranian people without giving a platform to such a thuggish regime whose domestic targets are the same as the targets of the far right in this country.
on top of which Press TV has had and will have no effect, either way, on the current war-ratcheting. It’s output is alternately ludcicrous or nasty. This has no relevance to any war. It’s only real relevance to the British left is that it has employed a few of them – but that is hardly something to be proud of.
Mick Hartley,
There you go again:
- ‘My enemy’s enemy isn’t my friend’ – I didn’t suggest it was. That you think it was any part of my thinking says more about your ideas than mine
- ‘…if you imagine that the presence of Press TV has somehow had any role whatever in preventing the build up in tensions towards war in recent times.’ – I said nothing of the sort, but I’m beginning to see how you argue
I suppose you have to misrepresent when you’re giving sustenance to the aggressors’ arguments.
Mick Hartley: “Which of the broadcasters in the US and UK do you have in mind that are (1) state-owned propaganda arms…”
Oh really. So Channels owned by eg Murdoch cannot be considered propaganda ‘arms’, as they are corporate owned, not state owned…
rich,
You said “in a time when elements among the West’s rulers are seriously advocating war against Iran, you’re attacking Iranian broadcasters.”
You appear to be implying that to criticise them is consequently suspect and that therefore they shouldn’t be criticised. if that’s not what you were implying then please clarify what you meant by your implied connection between my criticism and the current rise of warmongering.
“- ‘…if you imagine that the presence of Press TV has somehow had any role whatever in preventing the build up in tensions towards war in recent times.’ – I said nothing of the sort, but…’
But you implied a connection between the war build up and my criticism. Or did the quoted sentence just randomly come into your head without any accompanying thought?
Mick Hartley #34: “can you explain why SU is publishing apologia for the propaganda arm of a regime that uses violence and imprisonment against trade unionists?”
By apologia, presumably you mean suggesting that Press TV should not be banned from television?
No, I mean publishing without comment Press TV’s own inaccurate apologia for itself.
Now, i have answered your question. Have you found that list of parallel examples of UK and US channels which are (1) state-owned propaganda arms, and (2) have actually broadcasted confessions obtained under duress by said state?
Or can we take it that is a ‘parallel’ you can’t substantiate?
By the way, I don’t fetch sticks for people who don’t reciprocate, so please don’t imagine I’ll bother with another attempt at a deflectionary question on your part.
Mick Hartley: ‘Have you found that list of parallel examples of UK and US channels which are (1) state-owned propaganda arms, and (2) have actually broadcasted confessions obtained under duress by said state?’
Well, like I indicated before, the matter of ‘state-owned propaganda arms’ is utter crap.
As for duressed and false confessions, the BBC like other Western outlets promoted these as fact.
Mick Hartley,
I know it’s pointless continuing this, as you’ll continue to overlay misrepresentation with misrepresentation, but let’s have a go.
You eventually acknowledged your opposition to warmongering. Now the question becomes: what will you do, in the run-up to a war, about the anti-war movement? Will you involve yourself? Will you still welcome the absence of Press TV in such circumstances?
Could OFCOM do something about the full-spectrum coverage that the tedious Tory skinhead Iain Duncan Smith is getting this morning?
Since I woke up I’ve been subjected to his moon-faced platitude mongering on Welfare Reform being spouted on every single TV and radio station news channel that I’ve tuned into.
Either this is a coordinated snow job, or else Dunc’n Donut has achieved some quantum state where he has a high probablity of being in several places at once.
Less of Duncan Smith would be a very good thing. I’m not arguing for censorship, just against a government-corporate Press Monopoly.
The same principles apply in the Press TV case.
The ban reinforces the British government-corporate monopoly of the media and such measures could potentially be used to ban any left-wing journals, radio programmes etc..
#39
It is clearly labelled as a Press Release from Press TV itself, and therefore people are completely aware of its provenance and can draw their own conclusions from it, as you indeed have.
The issue of state ownership is a red herring, Channel Four is state owned, it doesn’t mean that david cameron has editorial control of it. The state owned BBC World Service broadcasts in Farsi, and even without direct British government is expected to align itself with the values presumed to be shared by British society.
With regard to torture, British TV stations reported as fact for many years that the Birmingham Six and Guidlford Four were guilty and had confessed.
To be honest, i have never watched Press Tv, but the issue here is not whether people agree with is content but that the British state regulator has chosen to restrict the rights of British citizens to watch it and make up our own minds.
Some useful background on this case.
http://www.channel4.com/news/iran-reporters-ofcom-complaint-over-tv-confession
But please – let’s be honest. The Bahari allegations are obviously not comparable with the British TV treatment of the Guildford 4 or the Birmingham 6 cases. Bahari claims he was “interviewed” in prison, directly by a Press TV journalist. The prison authorities had provided a script for the answers he was obliged to give, under threat of execution for non-compliance. This is hardly beyond belief. The Iranian authorities have a track record here – former Tudeh leader Noureddin Kianouri’s broadcast “confession” of spying for the USSR is available on YouTube for anyone who needs reminding of that.
Nothing like that happened with the Guildford 4 or Birmingham 6 cases. Live “confessions” of the accused were not broadcast on British television. British TV stations reported the trials (including the fact that the defendants pleaded not guilty) and the convictions, but later also broadcast programmes casting doubt on the convictions, which played an important part in getting the convictions overturned.
Press TV seems to have had ample opportunity to co-operate with OFCOM, but has chosen not to do so. Fair enough, It’s their choice.
I think they went for it because it is a broadcast outlet of a country that the USA and pals are currently subjecting to a kind of undeclared, just below the surface war which could soon turn into something a little more overt.
At a slight tangent, what satellite TV channel is there in English that puts a distinctively left-wing perspective on the world? Are there any at all?
Test
#45 ‘I think they went for it because it is a broadcast outlet of a country that the USA and pals are currently subjecting to a kind of undeclared, just below the surface war…’
And please tell us what imperial power OFCOM in league with when they decided to revoke the licences of adult channels Tease Me, Tease Me TV, and Tease Me 2 and Tease Me 3 for broadcasting pre-watershed hardcore pornography?
The Kingdom of Belgium?
Dumb conspiracy theories make the left look rather silly.
PRESS TV did something completely morally reprehensible and OFCOM rightly fined them for it.
The fact that they are unwilling to pay the fine, or locate their editorial oversight to the UK, is their own doing.
@46 Test
Most sense you’ve made in weeks.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/rushdie-india-speech-cancelled-amid-death-threats-112914746.html
A TV station run as the propaganda wing of a country that tortures and murders those within its borders who want real democracy and freedom, that bans communism outright runs foul of UK broadcasting rules (of course after blocking the BBC as it does all opposing medias) gets the crocodile tears from the communist / communalist alliance (RESPECT).
Some useless piece of crap lost his job (Galloway), so his minions do their job and put out the press release of this murderous regimes propaganda wing…..
Kisan: “A TV station run as the propaganda wing of a country that tortures and murders those within its borders who want real democracy and freedom… etc etc”
Hmmmm. Presumably then, the broadcast propaganda wings of countries that torture and murder people outside their borders is OK?
BTW, the BBC has been complicit in some rather disgusting things- to give one small example, its enthusiastic justification of the NATO rocket attack on the TV station in Belgrade in 1999, killing 16 media workers.
Oh & btw Kisan, unfortunately your description of George Galloway as “Some useless piece of crap” says a lot more about you than it does about him.
#51 Agreed. I think johng once pointed out that kisan is a disgrace to his pseudonym, which means peasant in some Indian languages
HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain
Socialist Unity: Discussion, debate & analysis for activists and trade unionists, covering British & international politics, economics, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, music and culture