{"id":93435,"date":"2011-12-02T15:53:48","date_gmt":"2011-12-02T15:53:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.indexoncensorship.org\/?p=6965"},"modified":"2011-12-02T15:53:48","modified_gmt":"2011-12-02T15:53:48","slug":"maziar-bahari-on-press-tv-ofcom-fine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/?p=93435","title":{"rendered":"Maziar Bahari on Press TV Ofcom fine"},"content":{"rendered":"

After four months of deliberation, Ofcom has fined Press TV \u00a3100,000<\/a> for broadcasting its interview with the journalist and filmmaker Maziar Bahari in 2009. In October, Press TV was reporting that it was in danger of losing its licence, bizarrely blaming the threat<\/a> on the royal family. Instead, just as the UK faces a crisis in its diplomatic relations with Iran, following the attack on the Tehran embassy this week, it receives a hefty fine. Considering the serious nature of its breach and the feverish circumstances, it seems a relatively mild punishment. The BBC was fined \u00a3150,000 after the Brand-Ross debacle<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The broadcaster faced sanctions following its broadcast while Maziar Bahari was being held in Evin Prison. Bahari had been detained for 118 days following the elections that summer, which he was reporting for Newsweek. He was held in solitary confinement, subjected to beatings and forced confessions, and accused of spying and threatened with the death penalty. Index on Censorship took part in an international campaign for his release.<\/p>\n

The interview was filmed in prison, under extreme duress and without Maziar Bahari\u2019s consent. Nor were the circumstances in which the interview was conducted made clear to viewers. In July, Ofcom judged Press TV\u2019s conduct to be \u201cserious and deliberate\u201d breaches of its code, describing the broadcast as an \u201cunwarranted infringement of Mr Bahari\u2019s privacy\u201d. The regulator observed that Press TV had failed to obtain Maziar Bahari\u2019s consent \u201cwhile he was in a sensitive situation and vulnerable state\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf this was just a personal issue I would not have bothered pursuing it,\u201d Maziar Bahari told Index. \u201cBut it is something that happens to other people on a daily basis. I have friends who were arrested in Iran and they are forced to make televised confessions on different channels. Unfortunately we cannot lodge a complaint against other channels of the Iranian government, so that\u2019s what motivated me to do it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Maziar Bahari had hoped that Ofcom would deprive Press TV of its licence to broadcast on Sky cable. However he believes that the fine, along with Ofcom\u2019s demand that Press TV\u2019s head office in Tehran, rather than London, should be in control of its licence to broadcast, will have a significant impact on its future in the UK.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think Press TV will be under a lot of pressure,\u201d he said. \u201cIt will either be shut down or will have to modify its programmes.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Communications Act 2003 requires that a licence is held by the body that is in effective control of the TV service. While Ofcom was deliberating on sanctions, evidence came to light that it was the Tehran office that was in effective control of broadcasts rather than the London-based body that holds the Ofcom licence. Press TV now has 35 days to bring the service back into compliance by applying to transfer the licence to the correct body.<\/p>\n

\u201cPress TV always said ‘it\u2019s not us, we\u2019re just the programme makers’,\u201d says Maziar Bahari. \u2018This move denies them that excuse.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jo Glanville<\/strong>: Maziar Bahari on Press TV Ofcom fine<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_mi_skip_tracking":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[7359,989,490,3426],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93435"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=93435"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93435\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=93435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=93435"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=93435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}