Statements in Meeting with Officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

It seems that what will, God willing, help advance the work of the broadcasting organization and reach the point repeatedly mentioned by our dear brother in his speech, should be shared and discussed. Of course, know that my desire and eagerness was to hear from you. It is true that the radio and television, which is your work, constantly speak; however, it is appropriate to hear your views and perspectives on various issues and the progress of this important work from yourselves, which unfortunately has not happened. Now, in this session, it cannot be done; unless there is a more limited session where brothers can say something and the matter does not end up as just a speech from me to the officials.

Mass media everywhere in the world is one of the most sensitive centers; it is not exclusive to Iran. The reason is clear; because everything a propaganda apparatus and a public tool like radio and television does — its good and bad, the work done in it, and the effort you make — is constantly in front of the people's eyes. It is not that you do something in broadcasting today and its effect is not visible. No, every action taken in broadcasting is quickly observed. Of course, there are long-term programs; like training efficient elements whose results are seen later; but that is outside the daily management of this organization.

The nature of the daily management of this organization is such that its reflection and the people's perception and understanding of it are almost immediate. You produce a program today and will execute it at most a week, two weeks, or a month later; meaning it is seen very soon. An organization whose effect is so rapid and public has various expectations in return. This place is indeed very sensitive; even if there is no system behind this media that has a doctrine and a path. If it is so — and it is — naturally, the sensitivity of this organization will be much greater. Therefore, in people's lives, this organization is extraordinarily sensitive, important, and decisive. Good and bad work and service and, God forbid, misconduct in this organization differ from other places; because its impact is public and rapid, and its scope is very wide and tangible and visible. Therefore, I say this truly from the bottom of my heart.

The first thing that should be said to the officials of this organization is a word of encouragement and thanks. It is a reality that you have chosen a very important and nerve-wracking and demanding job. Every good example and every desirable effect observed in your work truly deserves deep and sincere thanks. I also have this gratitude for you and hope that God will help you to continue this work well and completely and perfectly. You should think about perfecting the work; meaning it should get better day by day.

It is true, I also confirm this meaning that there is a gap between the current broadcasting of the Islamic Republic and what is expected. Who should fill this gap? No one can fill it except you officials and those involved. Without knowledge and familiarity with the problems, this work cannot be done from the outside. This work is from within, with dedicated managers, with interested agents, with innovations that will be applied in the work, and with a strong sense of responsibility, and we must do this work.

A good point in our dear brother's speech, Mr. Hashemi, was that he said some places tell us what you do with the radio so that we can do the same. This is a very important point. It does not necessarily mean that all of them have come and seen our radio and, having observed that it is very high-level, have said what you are doing. No, they have mostly not seen our radio and television. This means their expectations. That is, now in Islamic and revolutionary countries and also in many countries that are neither Islamic nor revolutionary and want to run their country well, there is this thought that the Islamic Republic system, while declaring that its broadcasting is a university, what does it do? They want to understand and use our experiences. I fear that if we give them what is available, their expectations will not be met. In any case, this expectation and anticipation exist from us; we must know this.

Broadcasting should truly be advanced in the direction of a university. Of course, there are many words here, and you know that I am also a person of words and discussion. In these cultural areas, there is much to be said and heard. I do not want to enter those topics where someone, for example, says broadcasting is a channel and if it only gives a specific thought and idea to the people, whether it is contrary to the principles of democracy or not. In our view, these words are finished and resolved.

A system, with a revolution and with a progressive and advanced doctrine and with a very distinguished political state in the world, is being run and has something to say and wants to convey it to its audience — both inside and outside. This speech must be said through the media and nothing else. Previously, among some artists, the discussion of filling time, art with duty, art without duty, art by order, whether an artist can be told to do this work or not, has been raised, which in my opinion, these are very old words.

Today's world is a world full of corruption and immersed in corruption; this is undeniable. It is not necessary for a person to be a cleric and sanctimonious to say this world is a corrupt world. The world is a world where politics is in the service of milking and branding humans; a world where money is the ultimate deity and desire for a vast class — who also hold power — and none of the human ideals are considered for them. Look at these company owners and these managers of world politics and economy; who are they? Are human ideals a bit considered for them?

A world where politics and international relations and even the relations of governments and people are based on lies and deceit and hypocrisy; a world where a government is not ashamed to admit to the massive killing of thousands of people who have no enmity with it and did not have; not admitting, but boasting about the Hiroshima incident! Just two years ago, America announced that we do not feel ashamed of the Hiroshima incident! This is the decline of the world. In such a world, a country and a nation, after centuries of being victims of interventionist and profit-seeking policies, has now awakened, felt personality and power, had something to say, had faith, presented its faith in a framework that can be presented to the world, created a revolution, expelled a dependent corrupt miserable system, created its own system, and is also confronting the challenges and threats of world powers. Such a system has something to say.

Islam today is not a small thing. Islam today has the most beautiful and meaningful and beneficial messages for humanity. This is a reality. Now, in this situation and position where Islam has come, formed a government, launched a system and a revolution with this grandeur, and all the wolves of the world have sharpened their teeth against this system, we come and discuss inside the radio and television or outside it whether the radio and television must necessarily present the accepted concepts of the government or system as the main opinions; or not, it is also an opinion like other opinions! This is not at all debatable and discussable. I passed over this issue, I did not want to raise it; but it came up.

Therefore, consider broadcasting as a university for teaching the principles of revolutionary Islam. Our perception of broadcasting is this. When the Imam said "university," something is taught in a university; what is to be taught in this university? What is taught in this university consists of the messages, foundations, concepts, and lessons of pure Islam and revolutionary Islam and real Islam. This is what is ideal in broadcasting.

We want to reach this point; but we have a distance. You know this more than I do. I know many of the faults of broadcasting; but surely each of you in your own section knows the defects more than I do. Of course, you also know more than I do the efforts and sincerity that have been spent and are being spent there; there is no debate in this.

When I was thinking about this meeting, I was not at all thinking that this meeting would be presented as a promotional meeting; I just wanted to talk to you working brothers. Fortunately, we have such talks with the officials of broadcasting; with Mr. Hashemi repeatedly and almost regularly, with some other officials also more or less exchange of views; but in general, I want to talk about these with you.

Our radio and television must bring out and present the fundamental tendencies of the system with all its strength and power and art. In all discussions and everything you bring out of this media and this box and convey to the ears and hearts of your audience, this point must be observed. Find the fundamental tendencies of the system and reflect them.

Of course, before this session, we had talks with the gentlemen about Islamic issues and the knowledge group and I shared a memory with them. It should not be that in the name of Islam we say something that is weak, or weave something that only has the form of Islam; like these television scenes — the picture of the dome and shrine and the like — that you make for films and show something from afar. Presenting such things from Islam is a hollow, empty, low-value thing that only shows a false, superficial, and apparent ornament.

Truly, Islamic concepts and knowledge must be broadcast and reflected. In addition, broadcasting should strive to make people religious. One of the duties that the gentlemen must really pay attention to is religious education. Make your audience truly deeply religious as a result of your talk.

Another of these fundamental tendencies is opposition to the imperialist dominations. Today, perhaps it is no longer possible to say "East and West" as before. East and West in this meaning and division in this form do not have much meaning; but opposition to the enemies of the Islamic Republic system and confronting the interference of these dominations that exist must be felt in all broadcasting programs.

In the Islamic Republic system, honoring the dignity of humans — which is one of the characteristics of Islam — valuing humans, developing humans, employing humans in their worthy work, and boiling their forces in the service of lofty goals is another of the fundamental tendencies.

Political support for the government that is in power today is a fundamental tendency. This must be felt in all your programs; from your news to economic and political programs. Consider, during the ten years of the blessed life of the Imam, whichever government was in power, the Imam was committed to defending it. Even though you know, there were governments in power that some of them, when they left, were disfavored by the Imam and the nation; but as long as they were in power, the Imam supported them. The supports he gave to some of the presidents and prime ministers in the early revolution are still remembered. Why? Because a government was in power that was responsible.

This broadcasting that belongs to this nation — the government that belongs to the nation and is run with the money from the pocket of this nation — cannot ignore and sacrifice the greatest interest of the nation. For example, in ordinary programs, they recite grand odes in praise of the government and the head of the government; but in a satire program, or in a political and economic program, they undermine everything! Unfortunately, sometimes these things are seen.

Recently, there was a program that unfortunately unjustly attacked one of the government's policies with a righteous appearance; that too a media belonging to the government and the system! This is not at all in the interest. Truly, one of our fundamental tendencies is this.

It is not bad for me to tell you that sometimes some people criticize, and at that time they also criticized the Imam (may his soul be sanctified) for why you support the government with such care and precision and scrupulousness. I am really surprised by this talk. I have sometimes given an example to some close ones and friends and said that it is like a car in which all my possessions — children, loved ones, wealth, and assets — are in it and I have found a skilled driver who is driving this car through a very dangerous path. Everything I have is tied to this car. If at any time I see something that seems unpleasant to me, I will not say a word that distracts that driver a bit and makes him unable to safely pass this winding and dangerous path and reach the destination safely. I will not say that word at all, so that no harm comes to this car. Now you say, for example, why don't we suddenly hit this car with a weight from this side and say, Mr. Driver! What kind of driving is this? Or why did it happen like that at that point? That is, by our own hands, we put everything of the system in danger?! This is treason. The one who suddenly jumps in front of the car from behind the pass and shouts a useless shout is committing treason; he thinks he is serving. Now, in this sensitive situation after the revolution, it is not the time.

Truly, for twelve years we have been moving with utmost sensitivity. I know few nations — even revolutionary nations — whose situation after the revolution has been as sensitive as ours. Look at these revolutions that have happened in our time and we have news of them, and also those that happened before and you have read about them. For example, compare the first ten years after the revolution of our neighboring country — the Soviet Union — with the first ten years of our revolution. Or compare the first ten years of all these revolutions that have happened in Africa and Latin America over these decades, you will see that none of their situations — each for a reason: global situations, the preoccupations of powers, and various internal and external issues — have been as sensitive and dangerous and important as our situation.

In such a sensitive situation, how can we let go and allow people to irresponsibly take a point — which they consider a weak point — and attack the government and officials? The point is, in these conditions, I consider any weakening that is done towards the officials of the system, especially towards the government, as treason.

I say that broadcasting must stand firm against the enemy's propaganda against the revolution. Now there are many media in the world that with their propaganda, carry out the overthrow work in a traditional way! This work is very practical. That is, if a system is not firmly standing on its own, it can easily be removed from the scene and destroyed with an external radio; the same thing that superpowers are doing now towards various revolutions and more than all towards us. However, they are mistaken; because our system has a firm foundation and is on the shoulders of the people and in their hearts.

You must truly stand firm against this insidious movement of the media. Wherever the media focuses on a point, if you have not previously given its antidote, give it later. The false propaganda they are doing now, our media must stand very strong against it. You must also innovate. This innovation of the "Review of Foreign Radios" program that is broadcast on Friday mornings was moving very well at one time; but now it has become somewhat monotonous and far from expectation and is not in the same previous form; which must be innovated again. That is, they must comprehensively see and study that correct speech and that appropriate point and in contrast, bring out what the enemy says and bring the beautiful points of the system to the eyes of the people.

Sometimes things are observed that are truly undeserving. Some time ago, on the occasion of the anniversary of the victory of the revolution, I was watching television. There was a program that was praising the achievements of the revolution. I saw that the film being shown does not depict progress and construction at all. It is like assuming that the guardian of an orphan child, in front of those who protest, says I really help this child a lot; but while saying these words, he also twists the child's ear like this! You remind him, it is true that you say I support and help, but your action proves the opposite of what you say; that is, what actually exists and the eye sees does not match the tongue. I saw that this television did the same; that is, it filmed irrelevant things, showed them, and at the same time talked about the achievements of the revolution! Are these really the achievements of the revolution? So much work has been done during the revolution.

This point that he mentioned is very important. He says the investments we have made after the revolution are twice all the investments made in the past. This is one item; while we have in education, in road construction, in school building, in rural development, and in various cities, countless of such things; show these. In my opinion, such works are insidious. They must illuminate and show the beautiful points of the system, whether in radio or television.

What is desirable and ideal for this important media is that it should be a university where the highest and most beautiful concepts of the revolution are artistically presented and have attraction; not just saying something without thinking about its attraction and impact.

Art should be used and be motivating and determine the duty of the people and various classes. That is, the revolutionary and Muslim woman, the revolutionary and Muslim youth, the rural and urban, the literate and less literate, the specialist and ordinary, each when they sit in front of the radio or television, in the programs you give them, understand their duty and know what to do; their path should be clear.

Do not broadcast neutral, ineffective, contentless films without a message at all. Do not broadcast useless, contentless programs that only fill a time and a time gap at all. Some programs are like this. A few years ago, I was listening to a religious program on the radio. The words were apparently religious and inwardly hollow, the rhymes were unnecessary, and the phrases were old. It was not a beautiful old prose; rather, they had made up a nonsensical fabricated phrase in the form of religious phrases and the speaker was just saying it continuously. I, who am a cleric and a person of religion and of this art, listened to see what he wants to say in this half-hour discussion that he was constantly talking about — does he want to prove monotheism? Does he want to prove or refute prophethood or resurrection? — I saw that it has no concept at all. This is a neutral discussion.

I say if you brought this program because this place is empty, apologize to the listeners and say: Listeners! Unfortunately, we have not found a suitable program for you for this hour; this hour is closed. This is much better and more attractive and fairer.

Some films are made and shown that are contentless. Of course, since I am not an expert, unfortunately, I cannot give an opinion on the making and crafting and artistic works of it — I wish I could give an opinion in those areas too — but as a viewer who sits in front of the television and is not very unfamiliar with the knowledge of the time, I can give an opinion: it was truly unattractive and contentless. I am afraid to point to that film in question and its director and artist are unjustly criticized; but truly now there are cases that I can point to and name the films in front of my eyes. Do not broadcast these; do not even produce them.

I will take advantage of this opportunity and say a point. Production — especially in television — must be monitored. The gentlemen responsible for this work should not be satisfied with telling a producer, for example, make a twenty-minute, one-hour, or ten-hour film on this subject. No, throughout the entire duration of the work, tools and eyes and insights full of insight must be monitored to see what comes out. If, God forbid, a producer's responsibility is a bit weak, the work will be ruined. If you do not monitor, something may be included in the script that the poor director and actor will also execute. Something bad comes out; as sometimes such a thing is observed. What I am raising is not from memory; it is from observation; that is, things that have been seen and observed and examples can be mentioned.

Suppose we make a film about a historical story whose result and concept are something contrary to reality and false. Is this correct? You must be above the scriptwriter and monitor. Now if the script turns out well, that director, or even one of the artists, if they want to perform a movement somewhere, or add a word — which is usually done — they can do this work. Otherwise, you must come and say now that the film is made, what should we do with it? Either you have to broadcast it, or tear up and throw away a film that so much money has been spent on.

Monitoring is very important. Managers of various sections must give great importance to monitoring their work area and encouragement and punishment. By punishment, we do not mean judicial punishment and the type of judicial work; after all, it should be acted upon. If someone works well and correctly and according to the program, they should be encouraged. Someone who deviates, does bad work, does not consider the interest of the system and the desired concepts for the system and includes something contrary to Islam and the concepts of the revolution, should be dealt with.

I have given several reminders for these programs at the beginning of this year; but I have not yet had the opportunity to ask Mr. Hashemi what happened? Was it addressed or not? It cannot be that a nation sits waiting, then someone contrary to their will and despite the desire of a revolution, comes and wraps a program among the programs and puts it there; this cannot be.

Another very important point is about the Persian language. A few years ago, in the same place of yours that I came to, I discussed this. From incorrect speaking, a person really gets very upset. When a mistake is said — especially in widely listened sections, like news and the like — it is really like someone slaps me! The mistakes that are said may be a phrase mistake, a mistake due to inattention, or due to not being transferred from the correct book. Suppose in a good program that the radio has before 2 PM and is also very attractive, suddenly a mistake is said. One afternoon I wanted to listen to this program and then hear the news and sleep a little. The speaker read something wrong — a literary and phrase mistake — and that day I really lost several hours of sleep! When I say it is like they slap, it is not an exaggeration. This is still little; sometimes some mistakes are like a slap and a punch! Some mistakes are like a slap and a punch and a kick!

I remember he wanted to talk about "Jahiz." The name of Jahiz is "Amr ibn Bahr ibn Mahbub"; but he read "Omar ibn Bahrin Mahbub"! When a person hears Jahiz, who is so famous, like this, he really gets very upset. I wish when a mistake is said, no one other than me is the listener. Your listener may be a literate, a scholar, a critic of the system, or an enemy of yours. My fear is from your enemies who say see what they are doing with the Persian language. Therefore, the Persian language is really very important. It must be monitored and precision must be exercised and prizes should be set for those who are good.

The issue of music is another issue. Mr. Hashemi is right, truly one of the problems is this issue of music. It is very difficult for us to draw a line and say here is the border; but I want to say that it has clear examples. Between that permissible and pure and clean music and that music which is disliked or forbidden, we have not drawn a precise line to say, for example, this one, when it went up this much, or this instrument was added, it was ruined. We cannot be this precise; but after all, in this wide spectrum, there are two points, one is definitely permissible and one is definitely forbidden. There is definitely a forbidden one that should not be used.

If a music — now call it traditional music, or non-traditional music — that plays one of our usual music systems with a simple instrument, but the poem is an exciting, lust-provoking poem, it is forbidden; whoever the singer is. That pleasant voice and instrument that work together to, for example, incite a young person to a forbidden religious act, is a forbidden work.

Saadi and Hafez also have pure love poems. It is not that all their poems are mystical. Some have become more knowledgeable about religious and mystical issues than us! We say this poem has a problem; but they say no, it has mystical concepts! These mystical concepts that I do not understand, what mystical concepts are they?! Mystical concepts are mystical and reliable and can be relied upon when they are understood to be mystical. What is not understood at all to be mystical, who says it is mystical?! If it incites lust and sexual sins and licentiousness, it has a problem.

Fast and provocative foreign music has a problem. Of course, there are also music pieces that do not have a problem; but now I cannot specifically mention their examples. If you want and it is intended, it can be made somewhat more limited and confined; but I am mentioning those problematic cases.

The technical development of broadcasting is also important. Unfortunately, we are also far from the desired level technically. I talked with the President, I saw that the government is fully prepared for the technical development of broadcasting. I truly have an argument in this matter, which is not the place to discuss now. I believe that if we cut from anywhere in the country to some extent and financially pay attention to broadcasting, it is worth it and we have not been deceived. Of course, we are not in favor of unreasonable ambitions either.

I told that argument to the President and our dear brothers in the government, which was completely acceptable to them. They said if you say, we have no objection to spending on broadcasting. Now I also tell Mr. Mohammad Hashemi, really sit down and provide appropriate technical development, not too ambitious, but to the extent of need, or at least a significant part of the need and in line with the government's capabilities. If we want individuals to help, to develop the technical section, thanks be to God, there must be good individuals; I do not know them. Competent, capable, religious, and committed individuals must be employed and engaged in the technical section.

The scope of broadcasting's activity is indeed limited. Once during the days of Farvardin, I was going to a part of the northern mountains by car. Since I have the habit that whenever I sit in the car, they must turn on the radio so I can listen, I said turn on the radio. Perhaps ten foreign stations came on this radio of ours — this disobedient, rebellious box — but Tehran radio did not come! I was really embarrassed in front of that driver and some of the guard brothers who were with us, why?! Incidentally, the voice of some anti-revolutionary radios that were congratulating Iranians came repeatedly; but the voice of Tehran radio did not come!

Of course, now it has changed a lot. The days I am talking about may be related to three years ago. Now, thanks be to God, it is better; but still, there are cities and provinces that have complaints. During the presidency, when I traveled a lot to the provinces, most places I went, they had radio complaints. We went to Ilam, when we turned on the television, we saw that it receives Iraqi television better than ours! When they turned on the television, we saw yes, it is Iraqi television; but since it was bad and corrupt, we turned it off. Our own television, which was good and righteous and we wanted to watch it, we could see its picture with difficulty and problems. This is truly a very important thing. You have a reasonable word and want to say it to the world; but how can these words be said with a weak loudspeaker? Your loudspeaker must be strong.

I had noted other points to raise here; but time has passed. However, before ending my talk, I feel it necessary to point out a point. Once I was talking with Mr. Hashemi about some of these issues. During his talks, I realized that a certain manager in a certain section of broadcasting has heard that someone was objecting to his work; therefore, he no longer has the spirit to work and is objecting and upset. Brothers! Let me tell you that do not become indifferent from reminders. When your important work will have that high value, it will be free of fundamental defects. If someone reminds you of fundamental defects, you should thank them.

The device that is in your artistic and powerful hands and is under the supervision of your responsible and owner — that is, the broadcasting device — is a very sensitive device; it is no joke. This is not something that if, for example, a person observes that a certain corner of it also has a problem, they say this problem is in its goodness. No, only the good should spread and increase.

My belief is that you faithful and interested and efficient officials can; we have the tools. To the extent that we can mix these words sufficiently with artistic elements and present them artistically, we have good tools. We have many artists; but you must pay attention to the boundaries of the system and tolerate no deviation or violation from the fundamental principles of the system and the Islamic revolution. When you do not tolerate, when you investigate, everything will be corrected.

These reminders are friendly and brotherly and out of compassion and interest in you and also interest in a nation that must sit in front of this television and radio and have it. If, God forbid, it is such that some people for one reason, and some people for another reason do not sit in front of your television, it is a very big loss. If you spend, but do not have an audience, it is of no use. If a group of believers for one reason does not sit, a group of tasteful and knowledgeable and high-level thinkers also for one reason does not sit, a group of revolutionary concerned elements also for one reason does not sit, then who will sit in front of this device?! Then all this expense, all this human force, all this sincere effort — which I witnessed part of it closely in a visit I had a few years ago — will be wasted; it is a pity. These reminders are for this reason.

And the last word is that consider this work a jihad in the path of God, and this place a fundamental trench. I have never been unaware of the country's situation over these ten years. I tell you, there were instances where your share — that is, radio and television — in a military victory was even more than the share of military operations that were taking place in the region itself. That is, someone designed the military operation, someone determined the tactics, someone commanded and managed, but another factor achieved victory; you provided that factor. During the war, broadcasting was truly effective.

I gave the example of military war; but in political and propaganda fields, this meaning is much clearer and understandable and becomes clear and obvious by itself. You are truly a soldier striving in the path of God. Your work is important and decisive and — as they said — very anonymous. It is truly necessary that a day be introduced as the day of radio and television; although your presence is tangible and constant throughout the country. It is said:

The beautiful face cannot remain hidden

When confined, it will rise from the window

People love broadcasting and its agents; the nature of the work is this. We want this love to increase day by day. Therefore, it is truly not a defect to think about setting a suitable day as the day of broadcasting, so that on that day all the people express affection to you and, for example, give gifts and you also introduce yourselves.

God willing, you will be successful and supported. The session was a good session; but it does not fill the place of that session I mentioned. I really like that some words and speeches come from you and we hear some things from you. God willing, if there is an opportunity in the future, we will also arrange that.

Peace be upon you and God's mercy and blessings