Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

The Satellite Subversives 140

Posted by michael from the exposed-ankles dept.
SomeoneYouDontKnow writes: "The New York Times (free registration reguired, blah blah blah) has a fascinating article about a former Iranian rock star who has launched a pirate TV station broadcasting back into Iran from, of all places, L.A. From reading the article, I can't help but compare Narional Iranian Television to U-62 from the movie "UHF" because of its ultra-low-budget operations and programming, but, like the fictional station, it's wildly popular. OK, I know this is a little off the beaten track for Slashdot articles, but it's nice to see that there's a broadcaster out there more interested in providing a meaningful service than figuring out ways to squeeze more and more money out of viewers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Satellite Subversives More

The Satellite Subversives

Comments Filter:
  • What's on the web site pointed by the article?

    All I get in galeon is a counter in the top left corner and a background image....

    (or I must guess that the EM pulse I saw on my oscilloscope is their website exploding? :)
    • Who knows. I'm using Opera 5.5 running without javascript and no java support, all I can see is some sunset-ish background and a counter. Peeking at the source, I can see some tags pointing to .class files, and some javascript stuff too.

      But seriously, if they can't add support for the "less fortunate" browsers, the page is probably not worth visiting.
    • Nope, nationaliraniantv.com isn't /.'ed yet -- but it is chock full of... crap.

      Applets, Javascript, mouse-overs... all things that my proxy quite happily disables, thank God. Be glad your browser didn't bother to render it.

  • WHEEL !!!... OF !!!...FISH !!!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Shortwave ( 2793 ) on Monday February 25, 2002 @08:16AM (#3064348)

    Awesome show! Not to mention "Raul's Wild Kingdom" and "SECRETS secrets secrets secrets of of of of the Universe"

    "Today, we'll be learning to make plutonium....from common household items...."

  • Registration Free (Score:1, Informative)

    by sehryan ( 412731 )
    http://archives.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http:// www.nytimes.com/2002/02/24/magazine/24NITV.html [nytimes.com]

    Here is the registration-free link.

    karma whoring is fun for the entire family!
    • Alas, they've got wise to us and it doesn't work any more.

      And before people tell me I should register... well, I would, but it doesn't work. Some cookie interaction between their site and Galeon means it nevers notices that I've logged in. So the only way I can see their content is to hack round their login mechanism.

    • SHAME SHAME SHAME.

      You are required to register on Slashdot to post, so what's wrong with registering on Newyork times to read? If you guys cannot register to read a free article, tell me how you can pay for quality content! Shame, Shame, Shame!!!

      • You are required to register on Slashdot to post, so what's wrong with registering on Newyork times to read?

        1. Posting and reading are not the same thing
        2. Slashdot just wants my email address and name. The NYTimes wants much more personal information.
        3. I trust Slashdot with the information they request. I don't trust the NYTimes with the information they request.
        • So true. The day I register to _read_ news at a site is the day I start filling out my yearly salary on pc card registration cards.

          Nearly all the newspaper sites in the world offer free, unregistered viewing. Does the NYT really think the news its peddaling is _that_ good?

          Let the direct links reign!
    • just use this...

      user: slashdot_nyt
      pass: slashdot
      • Or even:

        user: slashdot_effect
        pass: slashdot

        Used that for ages. Note carefully how this retard site redirects to:
        http://www.nytimes.com//
        upon successful login (maybe because it looks symmetrical).

  • A "David Lean"-esque touch to reality.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shankark ( 324928 ) on Monday February 25, 2002 @08:25AM (#3064362)
    Zia Atabay's story reminds me of the craziness and single-mindedness of David Lean's protagonists (Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai). There is this megalomaniacal purpose to achieve what one has set out for, doesn't matter even if it is no longer practical. Yet, these are the men that shape history for us.. who, to satiate their ego, will not stint at anything to show us its possible to do what they do. I have the greatest admiration for Zia Atabay even though he started out to make some money of it, but eventually came clean.

  • Hmmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by wiredog ( 43288 ) on Monday February 25, 2002 @08:25AM (#3064365) Journal
    Since the 1979 revolution turned television into a grim, state-controlled affair -- which most Iranians say they find biased, boring, or both -- those who could afford it have invested in the illegal, but tolerated, satellite dishes, while others have largely tuned out.

    In the USA...

    Since the 1979 revolution turned television into a grim, corporate-controlled affair -- which most Americans say they find biased, boring, or both -- ... others have largely tuned out.

    Think we could get that guy to broadcast to the US?

    • Exactly. I wish the guy the best of luck and hope he beams some stuff our way as well.

      I think the reason I really love the movie UHF is that, one, it was made by a nerd, Al Yankovic. I think because of this, the movie has a real sweet nature where we really come to love that community and all of the oddballs in it that just want to have a nice TV station.

      Production values are horrible. Their product is amateurish. But the people are having fun and getting involved in the community and they end up being number one. And they end up being on the cutting edge.

      I really do love that movie. It's hilarious, but it's also a very sweet natured movie about people that want a better community. We could learn from it.

      Wow, getting serious about a "Weird Al" movie....time for coffee....

    • In my estimation, there's a high likelihood this guy's got the CIA behind him. The Los Angeles Times has reported that the CIA has been using LA's expat Iranian community for intelligence-gathering [latimes.com], as well as satellite broadcasting into Iran.

  • Slightly OT, but-- (Score:2, Informative)

    by Masem ( 1171 )
    Since UHF has been mentioned in the writeup, it can't hurt to say that plans to release the movie on DVD are set to go this summer, with a large number of extra features that Al is helping to arrange.
  • Sounds like they need more experienced technology talent working for them... hopefully someone who speaks Arabic.

    JonKatz, why not talk to your friend Junis in Afghanistan? I'll bet that the Iranian National Television broadcasters could really use him and his 'leet C64 skills in setting up receivers and monitoring stations around the middle east.

      • Sounds like they need more experienced technology talent working for them... hopefully someone who speaks Arabic.

        JonKatz, why not talk to your friend Junis in Afghanistan? I'll bet that the Iranian National Television broadcasters could really use him and his 'leet C64 skills in setting up receivers and monitoring stations around the middle east.

      I know you meant this as a joke, but they don't speak Arabic in Iran or Afghanistan.

      • I was under the impression that they spoke dialects of Arabic. Sorry for the confusion. It was 7am on Monday. :)

        • Re:They need more talent... (Score:5, Informative)

          by nomadic ( 141991 ) <`nomadicworld' `at' `gmail.com'> on Monday February 25, 2002 @09:28AM (#3064472) Homepage
          They speak Farsi in Iran and Aimaq, Tajiki, Ashkun, Azerbaijani, Balochi, Brahui, Darwazi, Farsi, Gawar-Bati, Gujari, Hazaragi, Jakati, Kamviri, Karakalpak, Kazakh, Kirghiz, Malakhel, Mogholi, Pashto, Pashayi, Sanglechi-Ishkashimi, Tanshewi, Tatar, Tirahi, Turkmen, Uyghur, Uzbek, Waigali, Wakhi, Warduji, and Wotapuri-Katarqalai in Afghanistan.

          I wonder why Afghan culture is so fragmented...
          • All I know is that my boss was an Arabic interpreter based in the Middle East in the early 1970's, and after getting out, he spent nine months traveling the region on foot. (He has pictures of himself, beaded vest and all, standing beside the now-destroyed Buddha statues in Afghanistan in 1973.)

            He said he was able to travel the whole of the region between Turkey and Afghanistan based on his classroom Arabic skills and experience deciphering messages picked up over communications frequencies (that was his job).

          • Just a little footnote to what nomadic said, since it bears on the impression most people have about Iran: Farsi is an Indo-European language, meaning it's in the same language family as English, French, Russian, and most of the languages spoken in Western Europe. The notable exceptions are Basque, Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian; Basque is a language 'isolate', meaning there are no known related languages, the last 3 belong to the Finno-Ugric family of languages. This all means that Iranians speak a language much more closely-related to English than Finnish, etc.

            Arabic, is relevant for Islam in the same way Latin is for the Catholic Church, which is why many (most?) people in dominantly Muslim countries can speak Arabic... as a second language, in the case of Iran, Afghanistan, and others.

            Disclaimer: I studied Linguistics, but I know *very* little about the countries and cultures in question.

            -chris
  • Narional Iranian Television
    • Spellcheck story submissions? What do you think this is, a large-scale commercial website with full-time editors and a large company backing it? Oh, wait...
  • Of course, to pay for a radio/tv station, website, etc. the operations should either be self sustaining, producing its own income, etc., or else you have the resources from someplace else to cover costs, even if the costs are just time and money.

    Since the guy is a pop star, the cost are probably coming out of his own pocket.

    • Re:Basic economics (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lars T. ( 470328 )
      Cough*CIA*Cough
    • Congratulations on not reading the article before you posted!
      "He sold so many records in Iran that he thought nothing of flying to Paris with 50 grand in cash in his pocket and returning a week later to his mansion in Tehran empty-handed. Ayatollah Khomeini believed all music was sinful, and Atabay wound up fleeing on foot for his life with $4,000 stuffed inside his underpants."


      "His wife, also Iranian-American, made a small fortune in plastic surgery clinics ..."
      So yes, the costs are coming out of his (rather, his wife's) pocket, but if you continue reading past the first page, it turns out he's burned through most of her $4 million and is now desperate for funding. In fact, the article itself is largely a plea for corporations like Pepsi and MTV to pick up the tab, help topple the Iranian regime, and gain lifelong loyalty from the world's Iranian population in the bargain. It's actually pretty interesting, you should read it.

  • cooking shows and tastefully exposed Persian femal (Score:5, Funny)

    by mochan_s ( 536939 ) on Monday February 25, 2002 @08:46AM (#3064401)
    Exerpt from the NY Times article:>

    He didn't fill the air with a lot of subversive political talk. He simply continued to beam into the sky movies and music and cooking shows and tastefully exposed Persian female flesh

    I hope "cooking shows and tastefully exposed Persian female flesh" isn't one show.

    Leaves a bad aftertaste in the mouth after reading that.

  • You know what's going to happen next? (Score:3, Funny)

    by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Monday February 25, 2002 @08:49AM (#3064404) Homepage
    The Iranian government is going to retaliate by creating their own station to broadcast to the United States! :^)

    • I hope so. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dmaxwell ( 43234 )
      Sometimes those quirky independent Iranian films aren't half bad. Sundance and IFC plays 'em. Iranian law sharply circumscribes what can be put in movies and Iranian producers are often creative in being entertaining in spite of these. You have the job of making something interesting with next to no violence and sex. It's difficult but they often pull it off. I think it's because they're have no choice but to pay attention character development and plot. The best results are a lot like some of the better 40s and 50s cinema.

      • You have the job of making something interesting with next to no violence and sex. It's difficult

        That's one of the saddest statements I've seen on Slashdot.
    • Didn't you read the article? They did!
    • Got a chananel here in Urbana called SCOLA, I believe that always broadcasts foreign news (most of the time anyhow). We get Iranian, Icelandic, etc feeds all the time. Now if only they were subtitled most of the time I might get a chance to get an alternate viewpoint. Alas, the only English-accessible news that doesn't come from America is BBC World and, of recent, the English have just been America's tool reflecting our interests to gain good standing with us (which probably isn't a bad idea from their standpoint).
    • I watch it every day. It's called Mosaic [worldlinktv.com] on Channel 9410 on Dish Network.

  • I think it's amazing the US govt isn't interested (Score:4, Interesting)

    by chuckgrosvenor ( 473314 ) on Monday February 25, 2002 @08:50AM (#3064407) Homepage
    The biggest export of the US as far as impact, is entertainment. Here, they have an audience hungry for content, and a station that would be happy to take support and attack a regime they clearly have a problem with.

    One cruise missile could fund this station for a year, and would do more to improving relations with the people of the goverment. Why sacrifice our people fighting a useless war with them? Or attacking their government when their own people clearly dislike it.

    I guess it doesn't play as well in the polls for the politicians to say "We fund pirate TV stations" as it is to say "We decided to go in and blow sh*t up!". Let's face it, the current administration has all but declared they want to go in and wage war.

    • Re:I think it's amazing the US govt isn't interest (Score:5, Informative)

      by zollman ( 697 ) on Monday February 25, 2002 @09:34AM (#3064487) Homepage
      It's never as easy as that. Here's three potential problems, and there are more:

      (1) We already have a broadcast means to present American opinions and points of view -- it's called the Voice of America, it's got editorial independence, and it's been broadcast in Farsi for several years.

      (2) While I don't know the editorial leanings of this station in particular, whoever chose to support it (state department?) would have a tough time maintaining their support once some politician started complaining that their views didn't exactly match American foreign policy -- and I bet they say some things about Israel that would sure piss off a Congressman. Before you cry "censorship", remember that the U.S. doesn't have to support unpopular views, it just can't forbid them.

      (3) The U.S. has enough problems with "Street Cred" as it is. Iran has already banned the station, but they'll lose more viewers, I think, if it turns out that this is just bought and paid for by the U.S.

      Of course, if the new "Office of Strategic Influence" decided to underhandedly throw a little money their way, especially if they didn't try to assert editorial control, I'd certainly support it.

      But don't automatically assume they don't 'cause we'd rather blow shit up.
      • I don't think the article suggested that the US goverment sponsor the station, but rather US companies, like Apple.

        But even if we consider your idea, that the government does it. Surely it would not be hard to set up some sort of a donation fund for the station that accepts money anonymously. The article didn't mention there was one, but if not, there should be. This way, the station can act like it's probably Iranian dissidents in the west that are making contributions (and that's not so unrealistic, when the salary of a single surgeon kept the station running this long).

        You're probably right that the US government would probably insist on screwing around with the content, probably regarding antisemetism, like you say. Then the cover would be blown and the station would be treated as another Voice of America, which isn't really taken very seriously in the reigeon because the propaganda on it is pretty heavy-handed. Have you ever actually listened to the VOA? They lay it on pretty thick; they might have "editorial independence" but if so, it seems their editors really enjoy marching and flag-waving. That's why everybody ignores it and listens to the BBC, which delivers propaganda much less blatantly.

      • (1) I'd be willing to be the Voice of America is jammed. As the article stated, they changed their location for broadcast, and prevented jamming.

        (2) I'm sure if the government stepped in, it wouldn't be public knowledge. It would invalidate a lot of what the station already does if it was known that they sponsored the station. So how a politician is going to raise it as an issue, would be moot.

        (3) Always a problem, but how does the average person watching know they aren't sponsored by the government already?

        I always assume the government wants to blow stuff up, they have a long history of doing it.

    • They are indeed interested. They have war rooms set up for this purpose. In the beginning, we were doing absolutetly awful with respect to the Arab world and Al-Jazeera TV in getting our side out. We had a substantial learning curve and still do.

      But you are very correct in saying that someone should bring this to their attention. When we work in Iran, we will have to paint with a very fine brush. This *will* be brain surgery. The culture is very young in terms of the ages of the population. It is very old in terms of history, language, literature, and culture. These must be left untouched while we try to deal with parts of the regime.

      And yes, you are right, entertainment and culture is probably our biggest export in impact. But I'm not sure if that is good for us. I'm a conservative and I piss on Hollywood and the media. But I am not alone. Seems even lots of lefties I know around the world can't stand it either. Hah! Something to agree on! :-)

    • It depends on the "power" that the Iranian exiles wield in the US. For example, the US has been funding "TV Marti" for decades, which just pumps anti-Castro propaganda to Cuba.
      One would think that it would be in the US' interests to support NITV. 1 year of support to NITV will probably cost less than 1 of those cruise missiles..... ;)
  • If you look through the site they say they are going to be scrambling the signal. Subscriptions will be $20 a month. I'm not sure if this is just in the US, or the sat over S.E. Asia as well. If it is scrambled in Iran, I don't know how many people can afford the $20 per month. I don't think the per capita income is that high.

    Plus the site is fairly stale. The TV schedule is as of 1/1/2001. I wonder if they have Friends yet? :)
    ---
    "Tonight on National Iranian Television, You Bet Your Life!"
    • It would be nice if people could at least read the article before posting clearly poster of parrent did not.

      • Nope, I read it before posting it. The fact is that Mr. Atabay resisted scrambling the signal for as long as he could, but he was going bankrupt for lack of funding. And even after scrambling, he's only doing it every other day, mainly to remind those who can pay that they should support the programming. Obviously, no scrambling would be preferable, but when the money's gone, he'll have no choice but to sign off the air, and he doesn't seem to be getting much help from anyone else.

        What I was referring to when I mentioned squeezing money out of viewers is the fact that the big media companies are more interested in seeing how they can restrict their broadcasts (copy protection, eliminating PVRs) so they can open new revenue streams instead of actually providing interesting and informative programming.

  • Dejavu (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mderdem ( 193403 ) on Monday February 25, 2002 @09:22AM (#3064458)
    This reminds me the early days of private Tv channels in Turkey. Till 1988 private TV channels were not allowed and we had to watch the nice but limited government channels. One day the son of the president of the government started a company in Europe and they broadcasted to Turkey via satellite. And after that day Turkey had a very fast transition from communism style tv broadcasting to almost US style tv broadcasting. This great change almost influenced everything in the country including music industry and news and freedom of speech. Fortunately the parliment in Turkey listened to the communities to legalize the private TV channels but I am not sure if this would be the case for Iranians since they are already banning Turkish channels broadcasting over Iran.
  • I think this station is great, but they need money to keep doing what they are doing. Surely there is some way to raise money for this organisation. Say we start a "friends of the NITV" and donate all of the proceeds to them.
    Any suggestions?
  • Well, the story is years old (sure i read about it in NewsWeek), and nothing to do with computers or nerds, so i`d say its 100% perfect here.
  • Well since the Telecommunications Act of 1934 violated the First Amendment and made the government the arbitrar of what is and is not for "the public good", only those whose political beliefs fit within the government's allowable range of debate were granted the most important medium of expression in the United States during the 20th century:

    Broadcast television.

    You enjoy your chains but that doesn't mean you are free -- quite the contrary -- chains of illusion are a thousand times more dangerous than chains of iron. At least iron you can see and break with physical force.

  • Dear Editors (Score:3, Funny)

    by rbeattie ( 43187 ) <russ@russellbeattie.com> on Monday February 25, 2002 @10:02AM (#3064597) Homepage
    In light of recent events and world circumstances I find it deeply disturbing that you are promoting civilized thought concerning one of the "Axis of Evil." Do you want the terrorists to win?

    As we are in an ongoing war against Evil Regimes like these it is advised that we think of their populations not as unwashed TV-loving hoards such as in America, but only as evil-doers and potential terrorists. Promoting news stories in this manner is unamerican as it will not allow us to kill thousands of innocent civilians (as in Afghanistan) without burdoning the general population with uncomfortable feelings of guilt or shame - feelings which will undoubtedly affect our economy. Do you want the recession to continue?

    By publishing news items such as this and allowing "free" discussion, you are only making it much harder for the government to start more wars, the military to recieve more monies and the Republicans to stay in office. I urge you, in the future, to respect this time of national crisis and return to covering your normal subjects such as useless news about technology, science and Anime.

    Yours,

    Nona Yurbidness
    Propaganda Office of the Resident of the United States of America.

    P.S. Since you obviously have problems being American, the NSA has been assigned to monitor your internal communications and shopping patterns for more anti-government activities such as these. You have been warned.

  • Now I wish Americans would watch alternative media (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Monday February 25, 2002 @10:12AM (#3064643)
    This article really reminds me of a certain poverty in the USA, a poverty that is obviously absent in Iran. The scene in Iran is like it used to be in the old Communist block: few people really paid attention to the state radio, because they were too savvy accept it uncritically. According to some studies, "alternative media", which in that case meant news from the west, had 80% penetration. They undertook considerable risk to obtain and circulate foreign stuff, but they still did it, because they had a hunger to know what the outside world was like.

    It seems the same sort of sentiment is very much alive in Iran, and I think that's wonderful. It's quickly dying in Eastern Europe (people read more foreign media before it became legal). However, the spirit is totally dead in the USA. I've realized that American propaganda is the best in the world. This is because it not only succeeds in displacing or marginalizing all serious dissent, but it manages to convince its consumers that it's hiding nothing.

    Iranians are obviously not naive enough to think that their national media tells it like it is, but Americans think exactly this of our own domestic media. To someone who has lived in many parts of the world and makes an effort to closely follow world events in the world press, FOX news and the Washington Post seem almost the same. It's telling that Americans perceive the former as being ultra-right-wing and the latter as being very liberal--as though any political positions outside of this range can only be entertained by the insane. That range, in fact, is very narrow, and it's constantly narrowing further as the government clamps down on media outlets, and as they slowly consolidate into mega-info-corporations.

    No, we are not getting the straight story in the USA. That should be no surprise, as our government and the media sources themselves have interests to protect. It's no different anywhere else in the world. But really, would any American take time off work to watch a crappy satellite channel that provides a dissenting and balancing view? Hell no! We leave that task to ... the American media, who conveniently beam news into prime time and leave it on our doorsteps. These guys manage to stir up very vigorous debates about mere details of policy. We watch it and think "great, I'm hearing both sides of the issue" but we forget how close the two sides were to being with. We ignore all the stuff that is NOT being debated.

    For example, since we're on the topic of Iran: the two sides of the policy debate go as follows. The "hawks" think that the vigorous efforts of Iranian scientists to master rocketry must be destroyed ASAP with some cluster bombs and daisy cutters, because if they learn how to build rockets, they become able to attack our allies, and perhaps eventually the USA itself. The doves think that we should instead funnel money and support (=weapons) into the fledgling democracy movements so that the clerical government is overthrown the "natural" way. Or, perhaps the pressure will force them to abandon their research. So, we think the issue to ponder is: who's right, the hawks or the doves? Nobody in the US press could ever even float the following idea: "Maybe Iran has a right to defend its people with modern weapons, just like we do." Or how about "Since Iran is obviously making the transition to military modernization, we should see to it that they end up our allies." Well, I'm sure you could think of many more such insane and out-of-bounds position which, from a neutral point of view, have quite a bit of sense to them. But don't expect them to be even considered by the US media. Their grip on our political thoughts is so tight that the average Iranian citizen is effectively exposed to a much larger diversity of political views. For shame!

    Here, alternative points of view are limited to the rants of kooks on /.--and nobody really listens to them.

    • I do agree with much of what you said. It was very well-put. However, as another person who has also lived in various parts of the world, I do not believe that the majority of the people mentioned in the article watch this station because of some underlyi ng hunger for knowledge and truth. I think it's because the TV that they've got stinks, and they want better channels (in their own language). I do agree that American media is horribly biased and often downright untrustable, but I don't believe that the two situations are immediately comparable. Anyone that wants to can hop on a pro KKK website and get everything they want to see. Alternative viewpoints are there, and they're accessible, it's just that most people are pretty content with the Oprah/MTV world corporate American hands them. People li ke to believe they are different enough to be cool, but not different enough to be weird, and I think that's why America loves corporate control. (Another boy band?! AWESOME!!!!) But these people mentioned in the article have very little to choose from, aside from the extremely dull state-sponsored crap that I'm sure is on their TVs. I don't even know what I'm talking about or if I had a point anymore. Anyway. Your thoughts are well-spoken!

      (Yeesh.. Slashcode is wonderful. It's inserted all sorts of characters all over my text that I never put there. Splendid.)a

    • Re:Now I wish Americans would watch alternative me (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      www.indymedia.org [indymedia.org] for non /. independent media.
    • I've realized that American propaganda is the best in the world. This is because it not only succeeds in displacing or marginalizing all serious dissent, but it manages to convince its consumers that it's hiding nothing.

      And it manages to convince its consumers they're not watching propaganda at all. The US media are good at this ...

      Nobody in the US press could ever even float the following idea: "Maybe Iran has a right to defend its people with modern weapons, just like we do."

      As someone who's actually asked why we have the right to nuclear weapons when Iraq doesn't, I can tell you that the (limited) reaction I've got is "What? You can't let those madmen have nukes."

      It never occurs to them that what I'm really saying is that if one country shouldn't have them, maybe no country should. It's too radical an idea. American TV, with its perpetual binary presentation of issues, (right/left, hawk/dove, pro-life/pro-choice, etc. etc.) has trained the American people not to be able to think outside of the box. On the few occaisions I actually watch TV, the shallowness and obvious propaganda on TV news never ceases to amaze me.

      The American TV audience is like a frog who started in cold water and is now starting to boil. They don't even realize they're being cooked.
      • Or maybe the public has just long ago grown up and dropped their silly idealism. No country have nucelar weapons? What do you expect every nation that currently has them to just get rid of them? The fact that you could even ponder such a thing makes one question your mental facilities. Its like saying all guns should disapear or something. You know thats impossible so even suggesting it is silly.
        • Or maybe the public has just long ago grown up and dropped their silly idealism.

          Silly idealism? What's silly idealism - to say that nuclear weapons should be eliminated, or to say that one's national interest or ideology is so important that one is justified in endangering the future of the human race to "defend it"? The Communists and the Capitalists thought that if the other side's ideals won, then it all would be over - as if there's any record of any empire that's lasted for more than a few hundred years. But in order to save the world from the spectre of the other side winning for a few hundred years, they were willing to eliminate humanity. Now that's silly idealism.

          No country have nucelar weapons? What do you expect every nation that currently has them to just get rid of them?

          Yes. Most of the world's countries don't have them. What would happen if they decided to impose sanctions on those that do? True, the countries that have them would probably break the sanctions by force, but that would show the tyranny of the situation for all to see.

          The fact that you could even ponder such a thing makes one question your mental facilities.

          The fact that the leaders of the world refuse to ponder such a thing makes me question their sanity.

          Its like saying all guns should disapear or something.

          Guns would be a lot harder to eliminate than nuclear weapons. The manufacturing process is nowhere as complex and better concealed, and the end product is a lot more numerous and hidable.

          If the world survives the next few hundred years, and we get off the planet, historians will regard the existence of nuclear weapons as proof of our barbarity and stupidity.

          If India and Pakistan should go to war and it turns nuclear, you'll see a growth in silly idealism that will make the anti-war protests of the 60's and the anti-nuke protests of the 80's look small. All it will take is a few network broadcasts of the results. Once the horror and shock wear off, people will start insisting that their governments eliminate these weapons - which are, after all, the ultimate weapons of terror.

          War on terrorism? Why don't we start with ourselves?
    • So, we think the issue to ponder is: who's right, the hawks or the doves? Nobody in the US press could ever even float the following idea: "Maybe Iran has a right to defend its people with modern weapons, just like we do." Or how about "Since Iran is obviously making the transition to military modernization, we should see to it that they end up our allies."

      Sorry if this sounds hostile, but how can you expect major news networks to carry viewpoints that are insane? Normally I would say here, "Maybe I'm just close-minded, but.." but not in this case, because I know I'm right. Before I go on I should probably say that I understand your point, but it's a flawed one and your example is especially flawed.

      First of all, "right-wing" and "left-wing" does describe the opinion of the majority of the American populace. If that weren't the case the kind of media you want people to pay attention to wouldn't be considered alternative. My biggest problem with those who subscribe to viewpoints that don't fit with these larger groups is that they just assume that since the average American doesn't agree with them the average American must a) not understand them or b) be too stupid to understand them.

      In the case of what National Iranian Television is doing there's a purpose to it. The government in Iran is preventing the broadcast of independent television and so they're serving a useful purpose. The majority of people in Iran can realize the state-sponsored stuff they're being fed isn't all that exists (and, more importantly, they don't agree with it) so they're willing to turn to other forms of entertainment and information. This is far from the case in the United States, where the majority of people do (and yes, I find it strange too) enjoy what's being broadcast to them. Those who don't turn to other outlets. It's that simple.

      As for your example (which is what prompted me to respond, even though this posted ended up being much lengthier than I intended) it just proves the misguided, "if-it's-not-the-popular-opinion-it-must-be-the-in tellectual-one" attitude of "alternative" media in America. If the people in Iran turn to alternative media (which is, as was stated, outlawed) it means they're fed-up with the state sponsored media that they're given. From the little I know about Iran, I can say with confidence this isn't the only part of their culture which not only goes against U.S., but is undesirable for the people living there. Even worse, the attitude of the government could potentially threaten the country's immediate neighbors, allies of the US further away, and the US itself. It amazes me that people are foolish enough to even argue that something doesn't needed to be done.

      And, once again, this is the problem with American alternative media. It often consists of stubborn people presenting views that are outspoken for a reason. Obviously there's nothing wrong with this, but it bothers me that these people consistently take on the "how can I possibly be wrong?" mentality.

      Oh, well.
    • Here, alternative points of view are limited to the rants of kooks on /.--and nobody really listens to them.

      What would be cool would be if we could conjure up an interconnected network of "sites" like Slashdot. Anyone could deploy a Slashdot-like publication on this global, cybernetic network--we could give all the publication software away for free maybe--and then anyone with the appropriately-configured PC could "read" one of these cyber-publications. Then anyone who could aford the marginal cost of connecting to the Cyber-net -- I'm hoping the cost would be around 20, 40 bucks per month -- could make their viewpoint known.

      It's too bad the technology for that is not available, not to mention the social infrastructure to sort and categorize the publications. That's because, of course, greedy American capitalists would never invest in such an open, egalitarian "inter-network."

      For now, we'll just have to accept that Slashdot is it as far as opinion and discussion through computers. Too bad no one reads Slashdot. I bet most large greedy corporations don't even notice when they are the subjected of a Slashdot "story".

      Cheers
      R
  • OK, I know this is a little off the beaten track for Slashdot articles, but it's nice to see that there's a broadcaster out there more interested in providing a meaningful service than figuring out ways to squeeze more and more money out of viewers.

    What broadcasts are you watching? So far, all of the broadcasts I happen to view are FREE OF CHARGE. I stick up an arial, and view. Thus the name broadcast. If I want better quality reception or quantity of broadcasts, I can pay a third party (cable company) to put a pipe right up to my home.

    Capitalism dictates broadcasters need to make money for the service they provide. Today, they are "figuring out ways to squeeze more and more money out of" ADVERTISERS. PVRs might change all this, of course. In five years from now, perhaps your point will be applicable.
  • than figuring out ways to squeeze more and more money out of viewers

    I've stopped giving money to the entertainment corporations. It's really not that hard. Few movies are truly interesting anymore (but there's a few indy film festivals in my area). The same with corporate music (but the local music scene has enough talent to keep my interest). Other than that, I watch a *little* television (mostly news or reruns from my youth), surf the web, and spend time with my family doing real things.

    When the medic backlash hits whole hog (and believe me, it will some day), that's the time to buy stock in Parker Brothers and Milton Bradley.

    Oh, don't tell me AOL/Time Warner owns those companies. Maybe they do, but you get my point.

  • another view (Score:2, Insightful)

    by remolacha ( 473415 )
    to generalize and simplify a bit:

    who were the iranians who fled for their lives at the time of the revolution? the wealthy, many of whom were in bed with the shah, a cruel US-backed dictator who was giving away the store to multinationals while his people starved. many of these wealthy iranians, some of whom now live in LA, lost property in the revolution, and would like it back. meanwhile in Iran today khatami is a democratically elected leader who appears to be trying to modernize the country, walking a fine line between what his voters want and what is acceptable to the religious conservatives, who wield a lot of power in the society.

    in another post someone pointed out that entertainment is the US' most potent export. the world is fascinated with what it believes are our lifestyles, those portrayed by movies and tv. especially in countries with state media controls, which usually lead to incredibly boring programming, anything from the US is hot stuff. farsi-language programming is going to be a hit.

    perhaps one question in this case is, to what end?

    aside from loving the idea of shoestring pirate satellite tv breaking through censorship, I wonder what else is going on here. thoughts, anyone?
    • meanwhile in Iran today khatami is a democratically elected leader who appears to be trying to modernize the country, walking a fine line between what his voters want and what is acceptable to the religious conservatives, who wield a lot of power in the society.

      Now, would the arms shipments to terrorists in Israel be part of modernization, or just a minor concession to the religious conservatives?
  • Well, wouldn't you know it, one of my local news channels (KING 5 if you must know, personally I prefer KIRO 7 because they have nifty graphics and a funny little old guy for a weatherman) has been showing promos for the exact same story, only it's a "KING 5 Team Investigation" or something like that. After the story airs they'll probably start showing these promos that go "KING 5 exposed how your recycled computers are going to waste. Trust KING 5 for everyday coverage that brings the news that matters to you most. KING 5 News... coverage you can
    • count on
    "
    News that matters to me... so what do the other channels report, news that matters to people in Ohio?
  • I spent a week in Tehran, Iran this month. I was fortunate enough to be able to stay with people I knew, and visit with their friends.

    It's a beautiful city, if a bit polluted (I had a lung infection while I was there, so I spent a lot of time coughing), and everyone I met was extremely friendly and warm hearted. Filled with courage, and optimistic that change would come soon, that they will have more liberties soon and it will be by the will of their own people.

    Support for the regime has declined to about 10%, and over 50% of the population is under the age of 25. In my mind, that makes for an ideal environment for change. Things will change, and I think the best thing is for foreign interests to stay out of the way. Offer advice, offer knowledge without hidden motives. If the US attacks this country, or further manipulates the situation for their economic benifit, I hope that somewhere, someone will speak against such inhumane and criminal acts.

    The US government has already gone too far with Afghanistan, and I hope that we, the people of the world wake up and hold them accountable for their crimes against humanity.

    Who "they" are should also be thought about carefully. Are the American people responsible for the acts of their governments? I certainly wouldn't hold the Afghans, or Iranians to that standard; but what's the case in a democracy?

    You can't attack a government without hurting the people it governs. You also can't use the same thought constructs from one country to justify the attacks against another. The Afghans are not in control of their government. It doesn't represent them. It's supported by atomatons, not the belief of the people.

    In theory the US government is a representation of the belief of it's people. It would be wrong to use that though construct to justify an attack against Afghanistan. So if the US government truly does represent the people, please stop blowing up innocents in what is already a war-torn region of the world in an attempt to thwart the government that oppress them. Think of some other way. There are over 250 million of you, and over 6 billion of us in the rest of the world, what could we do differently?

    This TV station seems like a good idea. They're broadcating their ideals into Iran, and the people there have the option to acknowledge them. What else can we do to disceminate other views and ideals in a manner that does not trample over their right to choose on their own?

    I don't really have any ideas yet, so maybe you can help me get started...

    The first things that comes to mind is that many people there are poorly educated, so that they're easily manipulated and taken advantage of. So, if we could translate educational material into Farsi so that the people there who can read could help disceminate knowledge.

    What knowledge do you think is essential to help stop people from taking advantage of you?

    • Please read this. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by El Camino SS ( 264212 ) on Monday February 25, 2002 @02:00PM (#3065856)
      Are the American people responsible for the acts of their governments? I certainly wouldn't hold the Afghans, or Iranians to that standard; but what's the case in a democracy?

      I understand your viewpoint, and the proof of me being fair is the post I had earlier about Iranians just wanting what everyone else does, just to be happy. But I disagree with what you say. I am not angry, I just disagree.

      But in rebuttal to your claims to a democracy and that the idividuals that live in that domocracy are responsible, let me say one thing. American is a representative democracy. That means we hire to represent for four years. If you noticed the debacle that happened with our most current election, just slightly over 50% of the people in the country didn't want him. Trust me, the people will decide to keep him or not. But we can't be responsible for every single word our of his mouth, so you are close to correct.

      But what can be said about Iran? Why haven't the young 50% taken what is theirs from the 10% that control? My people (the Americans) did that 200 years ago, without television, without all of the modern issues, with hunting guns. I admit it is more complex than what I say, but why so late, why hasn't Iran become the modern, beautiful state that supports Iranians instead of hurting them? Why do so few control so many? My ancestors died horribly to give me my freedoms. Cmon Iran, we know you can do it too. I want to see Tehran without being accused of being a spy. I want to see Persia too... I know it is beautiful. I know all about Middle Eastern hospitality, it is the best in the world. I want to learn Arabic and Farsi. Right now, I cannot see your world because it is too dangerous for me to go to Iran because of my skin color alone.

      The US government has already gone too far with Afghanistan, and I hope that we, the people of the world wake up and hold them accountable for their crimes against humanity.

      Crimes against humanity? Would the killing of thousands of innocents be a crime against humanity too? The Taliban attacked the center of our largest city. We cannot live our lives knowing the next attack is guaranteed be larger, or more deadly because new people saw their success and want to join.

      Ultimately, I know all common people would like to meet and be friendly the Persian and Arabic people, not kill them. But look at our perspective... Are Middle Easteners enslaved in America? Do they not have religious freedom? Could they not write a banner that says "Allah is most high" and not have it torn down? Christian Americans would fight to keep that banner up, because if they didn't, they know they would be next. Trust that I would, friend. Common Americans are very, very concerned about crimes against humanity. We respect Islam and your choices.

      Keep in mind that the last three world-wide military actions the US has done (especially Bosnia) has been to save the oppression of Muslims, especially from violent Christians. That's right, mostly Christian soldiers fighting off Christians to save Muslims. Think about that for a little while. Would a Muslim attack another Muslim to save a Christian?

      So my question is this, because it flips it back on your world view...

      How would Islam react to another religion's extremists flying a jet into the center of Mecca during the haj? Would they be reasonable about that? Or would the whole Islamic world get stirred up like angry ants and try to kill all other religions? Would every imam scream for blood then? I know what Muslims are willing to do for Islam in a crisis.

      Crimes against humanity is not a relative term. We are trying to stabilize them after we get rid of a terrorist group we should have focused on a long time ago. We are dealing with racist, mass-murdering, lying, mass-destruction causing murderers. Murderurs that entire governments have supported. How do you deal with them and their friends?

      Enough talk. If you and I try, we will make the world a better place.

      Be safe, be good. Hope to meet you some day, instead of fighting you. Good passage.

      • First, thank you for your reply. Out of context, the lines that you pasted from mine don't accurately represent what I was saying, so I'll try to avoid doing the same.

        On the subject of the US being a repesentative democracy, where the representatives are hired for for years,my question remains the same. Who is accountable? In a dictatorship, it's obvious. But if these elected representatives are truely acting based on the will of the people, and the people agree with their decision, who takes the fall when the rest of the world disagrees, and decides that someone needs to be penalized?

        Should the punishment be absorbed by the entire community, or should the representative be punished?

        I in no way meant to discount those that were lost in the WTC, Pentagon, and the other flight that crashed. I acknowledge that the Taliban is a known supporter of the Al Qaeda network and an abusive and oppresive government, remember though that they didn't directly attack you, they refused to turn over a suspect. Finding evidence after the fact doesn't justify the means. The FBI can't walk into your home without a warrant (well, maybe they can now), any evidence they found would be inadmissable.

        It's dangerous to blend Al Qaeda with the Taliban. If one says that the Taliban is accountable for the attacks agains the US, one could also say that the US is responsible for the attacks against the US. Bin Laden was part of a group fighting against the Northern Alliance (who were supported by the USSR), and the US was more than willing to support these freedom fighters. It makes the US' decisions look like rhetoric.

        I may have missed something in all the headlines of the media conglomerates feeding me, but I don't recall there being much due process before the bombing campaigns began. It seems more like vigilante activities, as deserved as they might be, than justice. If we compare the WTC to the Oklahoma bombing (granted they're on different scales, but they're at least comparable -- ie. apples and apples, rather than apples and oranges), and the reaction afterwards, the response to the Oklahoma bombing followed due process even though it was not clear that there was not a continued risk of further attacks. Correct me if I'm wrong, my memory is less than perfect.

        It seems that the middle east is enslaved to Western nations in some respects. Western countries want their oil, their governments want western money. Afghanistan is stuck in the middle, literally. There's oil in Turkmenistan, and people want to get it to the gulf. The pipeline either goes through Afghanistan and US friendly Pakistan, or through Iran. There are so many interested parties being served by this campaign, that I hope that you agree that something doesn't smell right.

        My car runs on the blood of the innocent! Hurray.

        Your question of how to deal with these terrorists is the same one I have in my mind. I don't believe bombing a country and then cleaning up the mess afterwards is an acceptable solution, and it saddens me that we couldn't think of something better.

        Be safe, be good. Hope to meet you some day, instead of fighting you. Good passage.

        And I wish you the same. If you're ever in Toronto, I'd be more than happy to debate over a cup of tea, or beverage of your choice ;)

        Sorry I didn't respond to everything, I ran out of steam.

        Here is some interesting material if you feel like reading more opinions about afghanistan:
        afghanistan.unitycode.org [unitycode.org]
        globalcitizenthinktank.com [globalciti...nktank.com]

        • If someone shoots you, do you run for a lawyer, or try to disable them? I would seriously like your answer.

        • Thanks for the talk... I am going to go down and see my friend Omar tomorrow at lunch, and ask him how his family is. I assume you are similar to him... this wil be our conversation... I thought that I might ask for a little insight and some kibbi (seneya, of course).

          You are right about the US involvement. Oil is the drug of our society, and we, like all people on drugs, act in improper and insane ways when our drugs are taken away.

          One of my friends once told me, there was a time, long before I was born, that there was a novelty to whites in the Middle East.
          We were tourists. We delighted in hospitality and arts, we just came to visit.

          Then we found oil. We asked who owned all of the oil in the land. This was an issue that no one had thought about, so they said the shakhs did. So they gave money to the shakhs for the rights to the land. They pumped the oil. The shakhs got rich, and the governments went backwards. The influence of the shakhs was to make themselves all-powerful so they instituted the old, cruel ways, where they were always placed in the highest positions where their opinions meant most. There was no stopping them.

          I think that has left us in our current situation. The oil money has created spoiled playboys that care little for the children of their countries, and like every king, wage wars as a sport. It is clear that Osama believes in his cause, but I think to him it is a game, a sporting match of him against the West. A deadly sport that he delights in from having a spoiled playboy past. He has had all things, but now he wants to play as the Lord God himself, King of Everything, and make the choices of when others die.

          I hope the Muslim world is getting ready for a major change... a change MUST come soon. I pray the people of Islam are getting fed up with the poverty and their playboy leaders. I pray that Israel is going to have to come to the bargain table, and accept Palestine soon. When my dream happens, the leaders will have nothing to scream about, and the people will look at the things they stole while they were setting them at war. I pray the shakhs that say, "I own everything I see," are going to change or get destroyed by the people.

          I don't know why, but I hope that the Middle East adopts a "no more kings" attitude soon and takes their countries back for their children, away from greed. I pray that Israel stops killing innocents... and Palestine puts down its bombs.

          Good luck friend, that is my prayer for you and your people. (As we both say the same, even in different tongues and religions it is identical...) Blessed be his name. All praises in the highest. He is king.
      • the WTC was attacked by al Qaeda, a group of avowed terrorists, not the taliban, a "government" of afghanistan. am I wrong here, or do the differences between the two often go unnoticed? Links between the two don't make them the same. many taliban were/are bureacrats who saw which way the wind was blowing, i.e. wanted to keep their jobs, and joined. lots more were unemployed fighters needing jobs.
        I am not defending the taliban, which seems like it was a pretty horrible regime, just pointing out that attacking the US may not have been one of their central goals. it isn't such a practical thing for a government seeking international recognition to do, after all.
        is this going to get me in trouble?
      • But what can be said about Iran? Why haven't the young 50% taken what is theirs from the 10% that control? My people (the Americans) did that 200 years ago, without television, without all of the modern issues, with hunting guns. I admit it is more complex than what I say, but why so late, why hasn't Iran become the modern, beautiful state that supports Iranians instead of hurting them? Why do so few control so many? My ancestors died horribly to give me my freedoms. Cmon Iran, we know you can do it too.

        The youth tried to bring about change in 1999, demonstrating PEACEFULLY against the closing of an independent newspaper. The reaction? Government forces went into a university dorm in the middle of the night and threw students out of the window to fall several flights to their death/massive injury. Students were beaten up, jailed, disappeared. Even now, several students get picked up, beaten, or disappeared periodically. So it's not that they aren't trying - it just takes time.

        Please also remember that this government was born of a revolution about 20 years ago, then there was one decade of the Iran-Iraq war, where one million Iranians were killed. So you're basically asking for a second revolution fresh after a lot of death and bloodshed, when the first revolution was what brought about this awful government in the first place. Do you see the dilemma?

        Right now, I cannot see your world because it is too dangerous for me to go to Iran because of my skin color alone.

        Not true. Iranians are aryans, so we have white skinned, blue- eyed Iranians as well as the more olive tones of those who mixed with Arab blood after the Arab conquest. This is a usual misconception. Iranians are not Arabs. If you follow the passage of Indo-european languages, you'll see that the root of Farsi, the main language in Iran, is germanic.

        Neither are Iranians racist. Blacks, chinese, all skin colours are welcome. But you DO run into trouble if you don't believe in God, are a prostitute, or are an open homosexual. Iranian society has a very closed mind on those issues.

        The US government has already gone too far with Afghanistan, and I hope that we, the people of the world wake up and hold them accountable for their crimes against humanity.

        Crimes against humanity? Would the killing of thousands of innocents be a crime against humanity too? The Taliban attacked the center of our largest city.

        Incorrect. Al Quaida members are believed to have been behind the terrorist attack. Al Quaida is a terrorist organization and is distinct and separate from the Taliban, which is the former government of Afghanistan. 3,000 innocents (the actual number is less than the original widely broadcast estimate of 5000) were killed in the US terrorist attacks, while at conservative estimates more than 4,000 innocents were killed due to the US bombings.

        The killing of the women, children, and men in the US is a crime against humanity, just as is the killing of the women, children, and men in Afghanistan. Further, the trauma to Afghanistan is greater than that in the US in that the terrorist attack in the US was kept to one day and a handful of targets. The US bombings in Afghanistan embroiled the entire country and displaced millions from their homes for months (and the situation continues to be a crisis).

        Keep in mind that the last three world-wide military actions the US has done (especially Bosnia) has been to save the oppression of Muslims, especially from violent Christians. That's right, mostly Christian soldiers fighting off Christians to save Muslims. Think about that for a little while. Would a Muslim attack another Muslim to save a Christian?

        The war against Afghanistan has little to do with religion or humanitarianism and a great deal to do with oil pipelines/economics. I believe the same held true for Bosnia (what are the other two countries?) Generally, war has to do with strategic interests and regional politics, because no government worth its salt is about to invest billions of dollars and risk the lives of its soldiers otherwise. It's unwise to unquestioningly accept speeches from government spokespeople in any country of the world. Please see http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0201sou.html [fpif.org] for Foreign Policy in Focus' comments on Bush's recent State of the Union address.

        How would Islam react to another religion's extremists flying a jet into the center of Mecca during the haj? Would they be reasonable about that? Or would the whole Islamic world get stirred up like angry ants and try to kill all other religions? Would every imam scream for blood then? I know what Muslims are willing to do for Islam in a crisis.

        Irrelevant. As my mother always used to say: if your friend jumped off a bridge....

        Your belief that another group would have reacted violently in your place does not justify your own inability to control yourself. Let's place your comments in a different context for you to see what I mean:

        You violently beat your wife. Then you say, Roger would have beaten his wife for the same reasons, and maybe even hit her far worse.

        Your words do not justify your violence.

        Crimes against humanity is not a relative term. We are trying to stabilize them after we get rid of a terrorist group we should have focused on a long time ago. We are dealing with racist, mass- murdering, lying, mass-destruction causing murderers.

        Mmm. Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA. The Taliban were birthed from the open support the US gave to Islamic fundamentalists when the USSR invaded Afghanistan 20 years ago. Back then, Reagan praised these same forces as 'brave freedom fighters challenging the Evil Empire.'

        A few years ago the Paris weekly Nouvel Observateur asked Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's national security advisor, whether the policy of the US in training and supporting Islamic terrorism then may have been a mistake, given that 'Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.'

        Brzezinski's answer: 'What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?'

        Please keep this in mind. The 'stirred-up Moslems' that have been at the center of media broadcasts and discussion groups for these long long months are very much a product of past US support, and have caused misery all around the world. They have now struck with devastating force for the first time in US soil, and finally are being taken seriously as a global threat by the US.

        Your rhetoric, at times, seems to reveal that you are poorly informed on the historical context of the growth of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and the responsibility of your own government in nurturing it.


  • You would think that if this man was losing money, and that he was causing a political movement that we (the US) would consider to be important, that we could "secretly" find him some money, because what they are doing with humor and music is one thousand times better than all the damnable secret money that we use to do nasty, evil subversive things to people. After all, we "find" money to do things that benefit us in the world all the time... time to "find" some cash for him.

    Give him my government money, before they send it to the CIA. Battles are won and lost with the populace, you want to win over Iran, then stop counter-arming sucessionist groups and get more information out to them.

    I live in Nashville, TN, and my best friend in CA tells me about all of his friends videotapes and pictures from Iran, where they are playing Playstation 2 and listening to CDs, and having a good time importing it back to their family members. I was a little surprised, but when I thought about it, it was REALLY NOT THAT SURPRISING. Its not as though people that speak another language don't want to have fun. Its not like everyone over there believes everything that is said to them, or all of the religious encouragement to kill. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY FELLOW AMERICANS, its not like most of them want to blow themselves up or kill millions of us in atomic hellfire. They, like most regimes controlled populace, are radically misinformed. Time to change that... the nice way, before its way too late.

    Only the politicals would think that an auto racing game would be unpure and corrupt thought. Just like our radical losers in our government. Once people start learning that human means human, then we'll make progress.

    Honestly, its not like the rhetoric that Bush is pushing has helped a damn thing other than the regime that he is fighting. Congrats Bush, now they have concrete evidence to say that America hates them and the rest of the world... Good one. Iran, please commence with the flag burning in the streets, we have to give you that one after 'ol Captain Texas starts a gettin' warmed up.

    Good luck Persians. Most of us don't know what language you speak for what region. Please educate us and befriend us. We need all the information we can get. After all, you're just as human as the rest of us.
  • Allow me to move this conversation a bit over to the technical side...I found the fact that a "regular guy" can simply set up shop and begin global satellite broadcasts pretty amazing. I just didn't know this was possible (and that companies like Eutelsat even existed with for-hire sats).

    Can someone explain the technology required to uplink, how much it costs, and how:

    "the cheapest way to reach the United States and Western Europe -- cheaper even than shortwave radio -- was satellite television." ?

    The article goes on to say that it costs $90k a month for sat fees (not including the uplink equipment, I assume) I have an HF ham radio in my room in NYC that cost $500 and an antenna that cost another $100 and I can get pretty much global coverage with my signal. Add a linear amp for another $1k or $2k and it's a pretty loud global signal. Make that antenna a bit bigger and it's a really loud global signal. So what's so "cheap" about $90k a month? Yes, I realize that we're talking radio vs. TV here, but still....it seems like a fairly large disparity...

    More relevant, however, is the question about how exactly it works (what is that $90k paying for?)

    Any ideas?

    --noah

  • I'm amazed and disappointed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pyramid termite ( 458232 ) on Monday February 25, 2002 @03:14PM (#3066297)
    Only one - just one poster on this story bothered to bring up the obvious subject of how much it cost for someone to put their own network on a satellite and what kind of equipment was necessary.

    There's other questions that could be asked too. Can satellites be hacked? Would it cost 90K a month if someone was to launch their own bargain basement type satellite? How many satellite stations are possible on one satellite? What's the potential for signal hacking, culture jamming and counter propaganda?

    Is anyone awake out there?
  • [...] It's nice to see that there's a broadcaster out there more interested in providing a meaningful service than figuring out ways to squeeze more and more money out of viewers.

    When I see statements like this, it always makes me wonder if no one ever stops to think about reality. No, not about "pragmatic" abandonment of principle -- about the adherence to principle -- i.e., the principle of being true to reality.

    The assumption that if you're trying to make a profit, you're automatically not interested in providing a meaningful service, coupled with a sexual lust for governmental controls, only enrages me as much as it is inane. In a truly free economy (not anarchy and not fascism for the idiots out there), innovation and profit are directly connected. If you don't provide something meaningful that people want, they won't buy it.

    Marketing is not, despite claims to the contrary, the production of demand. The only way this hypothesis holds true is when people don't think for themselves. This is often true, but marketing is not the cause.

    In any case, I don't know if this guy's service could actually be considered "meaningful." "Altruistic" might perhaps be a better word, and in my book, that's the lowest of all evils.

  • Having visited Iran 18 months ago I can say that the locals will be very pleased. When we where there many people had rock videos made in the US and Europe. These were not simply western video but were made by Iranian bands living in exile. They sang in farsi. When I asked where people got these video from (as they where illegal) it seemed that usually they where copied from a friend. This meant that they where normally very poor quality, as they where analog video->video copies, that may have been through several people. The video you watched could easily have been a 4th generation copy.

    The bands apparently put up there own money to make the video and record them, intendeing the result to be smuggled into iran. It made me think things like freenet really where valuble.

    People need access to their own culture. They didn't want to see Britney spears, or read US paper (which are extremely biased anyway). They simply wanted a medium to communicate freely about things you and I take for granted.

    I remember one teacher we meet proudly showing me a history book of the Shar (written the 1960s). This book contained very little "subversive" information and the teacher thought the Shar was a bad man anyway. However it was one of his most prized possetions because he loved history, and all history books regarding the Shar where illegal.

    When you read stories like this remember that free speach is something beyond mp3 and warez trading. Projects like freenet are important to large parts of the world for access to information we take for granted. Given the clamp down on "Terrosism", free speach may even become an issue in the western world.

    (my iranian pictures are at www.butler.co.nz [butler.co.nz])

    Elivs

Slashdot Top Deals

Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.

Close