Spain’s ban on Hispan TV exposes Western double standards

An analyst says Spain’s particularly ridiculous excuse for the country’s removal of Iran’s Spanish language channel; Hispan TV is an obvious violation of free speech and exposure of Western double standards.

The comment comes as the Spanish government has ordered the satellite service provider Hispasat to take the Iranian Spanish language channel, Hispan TV off the air in a blatant assault on the freedom of speech.

Hispan TV, along with Iran’s 24-hour English language news channel Press TV, has already been targeted by Hispasat’s fellow European satellite providers Eutelsat and Hotbird.

Hispasat is partly owned by Eutelsat, whose French-Israeli CEO is blamed for the recent wave of attacks on Iranian media in Europe.

Press TV has conducted an interview with international analyst for Hispan TV, Javier Farje in London to further discuss the issue. He is joined by the president of Middle East Research Center, Richard Hellman in Washington and Tehran-based journalist and political commentator, Hamid Reza Emadi.

What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Mr. Farje, your perspective how is it possible that the West basically which has practically a monopoly on the mainstream media, why would they be so concerned about these few stations beaming into these countries?

Farje: I would like to quote Ernest Sagaga, Ernest Sagaga is a representative of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), who last December on 31st of December he criticized the decision by Hispasat of taking away Hispan TV’s transmissions in Spain.

Now, he said and I quote basically that this ban did not serve any useful purpose but secondary was depriving people from getting a different source of information and this is a key question here.

It’s not a question of endorsing the editorial line of Hispan TV in this particular case I’m talking about Hispan TV with whom I am related. It is depriving people from an alternative source of information.

Now people make their own minds about who they believe, who they don’t believe. They can believe CNN; they can believe BBC or they can believe Press TV.

It’s a choice that an individual makes. If you deprive the viewer from one of the sources of information, you are taking away an element of freedom of expression that means the freedom of a viewer, of a public to make their own mind about what’s going on in the world.

So this is one of the points to make in terms of… it’s not a question of endorsing the editorial standards of Press TV or Hispan TV; it’s the choice that the individual has to be able to watch a channel and decide by him or herself whether they believe or not in that particular source of information.

Press TV: What about giving the viewers a choice, why do you think that the West has been taking channels such as Press TV and Hispan TV off? Why not give the viewers a choice, whether it be Fox News or Press TV or whatever station. Why not give the people a choice?

Mr. Farje, let me get your perspective on this. It seems Mr. Hellman doesn’t want to answer the question. Go ahead Mr. Farje.

Farje: Let’s say for the sake of argument, I don’t entirely agree with what you said, let’s say for the sake of argument that it is propaganda. Let’s assume it for the sake of argument. Wouldn’t you agree that the individual, an intelligent educated person has the capacity to decide what’s propaganda and what’s information?

What is promoting certain values? What is objective information in relation to what’s going on in the world? My point is not whether it’s propaganda or not, the point is the freedom to choose what kind of information you watch and who you believe. It’s not a question of endorsing a particular lie.

Now let me give you an example of my particular example with Hispan TV. I presented twelve programs called La Gran Historia, the big story for Hispan TV last year and at no time was I put under any pressure to make any propaganda and if you bother to go to YouTube and see those programs you will see those programs, you would see what we were dealing with climate change, the banking crisis, the effects of the Euro crisis in Latin American economies, news and current affair issues.

At no time was I told, asked or put under pressure to say you have to publicize this. Now I take responsibility for my own actions as a journalist and I can tell you that if I feel uncomfortable with a particular subject I don’t cover it and they have respected that and in many cases when we haven’t agreed with the same thing, we decided I would not do the analysis.

So I worked for the BBC for 14 years, an organization which is reputable and I am telling you I believe in the principle that the viewer, the individual, the person has the right to decide whether a channel is propaganda or not. That’s not up to the authority to say that. It’s up to the individual and if we deprive the individual from this particular freedom then we have a bit of a problem here because we are playing double standards. So that’s my point of view any way in terms of choice.

Press TV: Mr. Farje, when you look at the situation that is taking place is it basically that the West, they need a media control as far as not exposing a lot of what is going on. Aren’t they that afraid of a few television stations coming out of Iran when basically they have a monopoly in the world globally? Tell me your perspective on that Mr. Farje?

Farje: Well, Mr. Hellman first of all I really would appreciate if you don’t take my words out of context. I said for the sake of argument about the propaganda thing so we can have a civilized intelligent discussion here. So that’s what I said. Secondly if I am asked to do an interview as an analyst about the plans by Israel to build more settlements in occupied territories and I criticize this decision based on quotes of Hillary Clinton, the outgoing Secretary of State.

Would you consider this as propaganda? Of course you wouldn’t because the decision by the Israeli government has been condemned.

It is a problem here of rhetoric and semantics which sounds trivial but it is I’m afraid real. You know somebody’s terrorist is somebody else’s freedom fighter. I didn’t say that [former US] President Reagan said that. Now we could discuss all night about who is a terrorist and who isn’t and who is a freedom fighter.

That takes me back to the original point I’m making. Again it’s not a question of endorsing the editorial line of Press TV or Hispan TV. It’s a question of choice. It’s a question of allowing… I mean what gives the authorities the right to decide what a viewer can watch or not. I do not want to be told what terrorism is and what legitimate fight is. I want to decide by myself.

Now let me very briefly quote the law that has been quoted to ban the activities of Hispan TV in Spain. Very briefly they say “The transmission of commercial communications which violate human dignity or use the image of women in an abusive or discriminatory nature.” According to Spanish authorities this paragraph of the law has been violated by Hispan TV.

First of all they have never been specific about what they mean by that but secondly for many women, I’m just giving an example, for many women parading them half naked is offensive and is discriminatory.

Where do you draw the line? So we are taking about the double standards we are applying here in terms of who violates what but at the same time the question is what the freedom of choice is here. I want to decide by myself what is propaganda and what is information, not the authorities, I want to decide by myself.