A very interesting post Mark, and it's good to have some balance on this issue, thanks. I am interested to hear your side as I know you don't knee-jerk defend the BBC like John Simpson and Jeremy Bowen sadly always do.
I was very upset to watch Lyse Doucet's report - it made me shout at the TV. Why? Because of the context of the BBC's remarkable quietness and seeming lack of interest in exposing the heinous crimes of the Iranian government over the previous 2 months (publishing typically one muted post every 3 days, rather then the 2 posts per day from Gaza for 2 entire years - the BBC has successfully inserted itself into countless hostile situations to bring us the truth, but not Iran it seems) and then watching them coming back into Iran with such a softly worded report that obviously avoided what appears to have been the biggest state massacre in recent history.
I honestly think that it was a report that will have had the people who ordered 20,000 people machine-gunned in the streets, smiling from ear to ear. As I'm sure you know, Lyse Doucet is the BBC's Chief International Correspondent and knows full-well the power that such a soft and therefore IMO de-facto pro-regime report will have had across the world. Lyse somehow forgot to mention that anyone at all was killed recently - and even in the web-page text only referring to "huge loss of life unseen in previous uprisings". Why? Speaking to pro-regime residents and stating the regime's official position is obviously understandable and i agree with your reasoning why it is important, but why did she have to go so soft on them and obscure the realities of what the regime did last month? It's not good enough, in my view. I'm still unhappy about it, sorry.
I thought it was to her great credit that Lyse got into the country and even greater credit, she was prepared to go. My first reaction was my God that women is amazing. This was only exceeded by my surprise the Iranians agreed to it in the first place. It must be like walking through a minefield with a dodgy hand drawn mine map. One slip and you find yourself as ‘the story’ in a ransom hostage drama. I accordingly noted her careful manoeuvres which characterised her reporting. This gave on the ground first hand insight and perspectives. So useful to those that understand context and nuances.
I watched the Rosenberg Panorama programme with very mixed feelings. Firstly, I have over 20 years of living and working in and with Russians and broader FSU, so Rosenberg's reporting was unlikely to add anything new.
However, his questions at the Putin love-ins are no better than performative journalism; no one genuinely expects an honest answer. What's the point of going to xxxgrad if he's shut down by the FSB within 30 mins of arriving - we already knew that there is no freedom of reporting.
The difference between his reporting and Doucet's is that we know he is hampered in his reporting and if it leaves Moscow, then it has a stamp of approval.
Given the BBC's underreporting (non) of this uprising, criticism of Doucet's parroting of a party line is perfectly acceptable.
Sorry, long day - this rambled. Hopefully, my central theme came through.
I agree with your premise of the value of reporting from the other side, and understanding in particular how the population of that country feel about the whole thing. I suspect your dismissal of the D day analogy because that was a “total war” maybe a slight misdirection- surely every war is total for those involved, often experienced as existential. But nevertheless you’re right in your overall argument.
Painting simplistic pictures of adversaries or presenting them in a dehumanising way simply distorts truth. Honest reporting soon identifies which side should be labelled as evil or the enemy.
Thanks for this really thoughtful piece Mark. I wanted to add some perspective as someone who supported these kinds of Iran trips when I was in the BBC but has subsequently come to think of them as misguided.
A bit of background from me - I went to Iran for the BBC in 2017, to hold discussions with officials about re-opening the bureau there which had been closed after the 2009 uprising. It was clear from those meetings - which never produced a concrete outcome - that what the regime craves more than anything else is the validation of serious international coverage in English. They completely reject any coverage by BBC Persian - and indeed the BBC is required to promise in advance not to use any of the material it gathers for use by its own Farsi service, staffed by people whose families are being actively persecuted by the regime inside Iran. This is a trade-off I now regret agreeing to; at the time I made all the arguments you do about needing to hold Iranian officials accountable for audiences in English, and the value of gathering any material on the ground, no matter how flawed the conditions. But I don't think the now the game is worth the candle.
I want to disentangle criticising the fact of the deployment from criticising Lyse Doucet personally. I can think of nobody better qualiified than Lyse to thread the needle of reporting from Iran under restrictions with the need to hold the Iranian regime to account. In her long form and live reporting she did this as skillfully as you would imagine. Inevitably though, copy repackaged in London for social media platforms ended up doing exactly what the Iranians wanted - for example a post on instagram describing scenes of national celebration and a family festival for the 47th Annivesary. This is exacly the kind of both-sides commentary that the regime count on when they let international broadcasters in, and it creeps in when producers who aren't on the ground with Lyse herself are called on to repurpose content for platforms where lengthy context cannot be given.
What do we learn from the sit-down interviews with Iranian officials - where international broadcasters are supposedly 'holding them to account'? They have taken no responsiblity for the deaths of tens of thousands of their own civilians, indeed they broadly deny this has happened at all. They merely restate regime talking points - about supposed Zionist and US interference in their internal affairs. Put simply this is a regime that lies compulsively and reflexively about everything, including killing its own civilians, and I have come to doubt very much the value of the 'holding to account' argument. It involves giving them exactly what they want - sit-down interviews with the BBC, Morning Joe and Chrstiane Amanpour, which makes them feel they have normalised their transgressive violence.
In your piece you say that 'a significant part of the Iranian public still back its Government including its repression of dissent'. I no longer believe this to be true - the scenes we are seeing now are more like late period Romania under Ceaucescu or E Germany under Honecker - the remaining people celebrating the Revolution are directly tied themselves or via their families to the IRGC and its affiliates, or are acting under duress in other ways. There is no longer a significant part of the Iranian population that freely continue to support this regime other than those who are directly or indirectly benefiting from its criminal violence, smuggling and network of internal repression. In allowing the impression to be created otherwise, international broadcasters are being gamed - having their own concerns about impartiality and 'showing both sides of the argument' to be played against them by a regime that doesn't care about these issues at all, but sees them as a means to manipulate the West into leaving it in place for longer.
We will see in the coming weeks whether military action materialises and whether indeed the revoultionary regime falls in its 48th year. I add these comments with humility as someone who has had to take these difficult decisions about coverage myself, and I'm making no personal criticism of either the people who took the decisions this time nor people like Lyse who bravely and at some risk to themselves delivered the coverage. These are finely balanced decisions - I've leaned the other way in the past, but I wanted to explain in a bit more detail why I've now changed my mind. (If people are interested in more on this I spoke to Roger Bolton on his Beebwatch podcast about it this week, which is why it's top of mind right now.)
Intersting article, supremely balanced, if I may say so. And I agree about Steve Rosenberg, though I am not a fan of the BBC because I think left-wing bias permeates almost everything they do.
Thank you for this beautifully clear and insightful piece. It helped me understand the reason for the increasing anxiety I feel about how we get our news. Looking forward to hearing you talk about reporting in USA; it seems as though old media is not really picking up on what is happening on the ground there, and is either pro-Trump or adopting the lofty pose of an indulgent grown-up to the infantile rage and malice coming from the White House, failing to take seriously the aggressive dismantling of democratic structures.
One has to admire Rosenberg et al. I did get sense of some form of martyrdom. A worthy cause perhaps? Putin will be replaced by another ogre, perhaps more benevolent, perhaps not. The regime in Tehran will not last. The death or abdication of the Supreme Leader ( highly unlikely) will change it as much as the death of Elizabeth changed the Monarchy in Uk. Charles, a decent man, is a pygmy compared to his mother, how can he be anything else? The journalism you describe are markers, the less it is allowed by those it wishes to view,the more effective it can be. Ultimately however itchanges little but remains a valuable tool to be exploited by all.
Interesting you mention Steve Rosenberg. One of the reasons that he is genuinely admired is his fluency in Russian. The same applies to Carrie Gracie when she was reporting from China. My question is how can you explain any complex situation if you lack fluency in the language? (Am thinking about the ME in particular here).
Excellent- yep the fog of war. It’s not the same as say some hard left tankie explicit disinformation or it’s more subtle manifestation such as The Guardian in some commentary telling us Ukraine about to be defeated every month or so-still in the fight I see?
The idiots who backed anti- Soviet forces in Afghanistan do so purely through a Cold War lens- Sandy Gall was a prick on that one and the CIA who played with fire and didn’t we all get badly burned in the end?
That does not mean by stating what in hindsight was bleeding obvious that this rabble were never going to be mates, that somehow you like refried Stalinism or its latest manifestation of Russian nationalism in the Kremlin.
Douchet and you Mark are about what the BBC use to get right. Bowen is another matter- v accident prone.
A very interesting post Mark, and it's good to have some balance on this issue, thanks. I am interested to hear your side as I know you don't knee-jerk defend the BBC like John Simpson and Jeremy Bowen sadly always do.
I was very upset to watch Lyse Doucet's report - it made me shout at the TV. Why? Because of the context of the BBC's remarkable quietness and seeming lack of interest in exposing the heinous crimes of the Iranian government over the previous 2 months (publishing typically one muted post every 3 days, rather then the 2 posts per day from Gaza for 2 entire years - the BBC has successfully inserted itself into countless hostile situations to bring us the truth, but not Iran it seems) and then watching them coming back into Iran with such a softly worded report that obviously avoided what appears to have been the biggest state massacre in recent history.
I honestly think that it was a report that will have had the people who ordered 20,000 people machine-gunned in the streets, smiling from ear to ear. As I'm sure you know, Lyse Doucet is the BBC's Chief International Correspondent and knows full-well the power that such a soft and therefore IMO de-facto pro-regime report will have had across the world. Lyse somehow forgot to mention that anyone at all was killed recently - and even in the web-page text only referring to "huge loss of life unseen in previous uprisings". Why? Speaking to pro-regime residents and stating the regime's official position is obviously understandable and i agree with your reasoning why it is important, but why did she have to go so soft on them and obscure the realities of what the regime did last month? It's not good enough, in my view. I'm still unhappy about it, sorry.
PS I wrote about media coverage of Iran a month ago:
https://markmwright.substack.com/p/iran-and-the-sound-of-silence
I thought it was to her great credit that Lyse got into the country and even greater credit, she was prepared to go. My first reaction was my God that women is amazing. This was only exceeded by my surprise the Iranians agreed to it in the first place. It must be like walking through a minefield with a dodgy hand drawn mine map. One slip and you find yourself as ‘the story’ in a ransom hostage drama. I accordingly noted her careful manoeuvres which characterised her reporting. This gave on the ground first hand insight and perspectives. So useful to those that understand context and nuances.
I watched the Rosenberg Panorama programme with very mixed feelings. Firstly, I have over 20 years of living and working in and with Russians and broader FSU, so Rosenberg's reporting was unlikely to add anything new.
However, his questions at the Putin love-ins are no better than performative journalism; no one genuinely expects an honest answer. What's the point of going to xxxgrad if he's shut down by the FSB within 30 mins of arriving - we already knew that there is no freedom of reporting.
The difference between his reporting and Doucet's is that we know he is hampered in his reporting and if it leaves Moscow, then it has a stamp of approval.
Given the BBC's underreporting (non) of this uprising, criticism of Doucet's parroting of a party line is perfectly acceptable.
Sorry, long day - this rambled. Hopefully, my central theme came through.
I agree with your premise of the value of reporting from the other side, and understanding in particular how the population of that country feel about the whole thing. I suspect your dismissal of the D day analogy because that was a “total war” maybe a slight misdirection- surely every war is total for those involved, often experienced as existential. But nevertheless you’re right in your overall argument.
Painting simplistic pictures of adversaries or presenting them in a dehumanising way simply distorts truth. Honest reporting soon identifies which side should be labelled as evil or the enemy.
Thanks for this really thoughtful piece Mark. I wanted to add some perspective as someone who supported these kinds of Iran trips when I was in the BBC but has subsequently come to think of them as misguided.
A bit of background from me - I went to Iran for the BBC in 2017, to hold discussions with officials about re-opening the bureau there which had been closed after the 2009 uprising. It was clear from those meetings - which never produced a concrete outcome - that what the regime craves more than anything else is the validation of serious international coverage in English. They completely reject any coverage by BBC Persian - and indeed the BBC is required to promise in advance not to use any of the material it gathers for use by its own Farsi service, staffed by people whose families are being actively persecuted by the regime inside Iran. This is a trade-off I now regret agreeing to; at the time I made all the arguments you do about needing to hold Iranian officials accountable for audiences in English, and the value of gathering any material on the ground, no matter how flawed the conditions. But I don't think the now the game is worth the candle.
I want to disentangle criticising the fact of the deployment from criticising Lyse Doucet personally. I can think of nobody better qualiified than Lyse to thread the needle of reporting from Iran under restrictions with the need to hold the Iranian regime to account. In her long form and live reporting she did this as skillfully as you would imagine. Inevitably though, copy repackaged in London for social media platforms ended up doing exactly what the Iranians wanted - for example a post on instagram describing scenes of national celebration and a family festival for the 47th Annivesary. This is exacly the kind of both-sides commentary that the regime count on when they let international broadcasters in, and it creeps in when producers who aren't on the ground with Lyse herself are called on to repurpose content for platforms where lengthy context cannot be given.
What do we learn from the sit-down interviews with Iranian officials - where international broadcasters are supposedly 'holding them to account'? They have taken no responsiblity for the deaths of tens of thousands of their own civilians, indeed they broadly deny this has happened at all. They merely restate regime talking points - about supposed Zionist and US interference in their internal affairs. Put simply this is a regime that lies compulsively and reflexively about everything, including killing its own civilians, and I have come to doubt very much the value of the 'holding to account' argument. It involves giving them exactly what they want - sit-down interviews with the BBC, Morning Joe and Chrstiane Amanpour, which makes them feel they have normalised their transgressive violence.
In your piece you say that 'a significant part of the Iranian public still back its Government including its repression of dissent'. I no longer believe this to be true - the scenes we are seeing now are more like late period Romania under Ceaucescu or E Germany under Honecker - the remaining people celebrating the Revolution are directly tied themselves or via their families to the IRGC and its affiliates, or are acting under duress in other ways. There is no longer a significant part of the Iranian population that freely continue to support this regime other than those who are directly or indirectly benefiting from its criminal violence, smuggling and network of internal repression. In allowing the impression to be created otherwise, international broadcasters are being gamed - having their own concerns about impartiality and 'showing both sides of the argument' to be played against them by a regime that doesn't care about these issues at all, but sees them as a means to manipulate the West into leaving it in place for longer.
We will see in the coming weeks whether military action materialises and whether indeed the revoultionary regime falls in its 48th year. I add these comments with humility as someone who has had to take these difficult decisions about coverage myself, and I'm making no personal criticism of either the people who took the decisions this time nor people like Lyse who bravely and at some risk to themselves delivered the coverage. These are finely balanced decisions - I've leaned the other way in the past, but I wanted to explain in a bit more detail why I've now changed my mind. (If people are interested in more on this I spoke to Roger Bolton on his Beebwatch podcast about it this week, which is why it's top of mind right now.)
Intersting article, supremely balanced, if I may say so. And I agree about Steve Rosenberg, though I am not a fan of the BBC because I think left-wing bias permeates almost everything they do.
That said, and there's always a 'but', I found it hard not to sympathise with Danny Cohen' article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/15/bbc-letting-itself-be-used-propaganda-outlet-iran-regime/
Thank you for this beautifully clear and insightful piece. It helped me understand the reason for the increasing anxiety I feel about how we get our news. Looking forward to hearing you talk about reporting in USA; it seems as though old media is not really picking up on what is happening on the ground there, and is either pro-Trump or adopting the lofty pose of an indulgent grown-up to the infantile rage and malice coming from the White House, failing to take seriously the aggressive dismantling of democratic structures.
One has to admire Rosenberg et al. I did get sense of some form of martyrdom. A worthy cause perhaps? Putin will be replaced by another ogre, perhaps more benevolent, perhaps not. The regime in Tehran will not last. The death or abdication of the Supreme Leader ( highly unlikely) will change it as much as the death of Elizabeth changed the Monarchy in Uk. Charles, a decent man, is a pygmy compared to his mother, how can he be anything else? The journalism you describe are markers, the less it is allowed by those it wishes to view,the more effective it can be. Ultimately however itchanges little but remains a valuable tool to be exploited by all.
Interesting you mention Steve Rosenberg. One of the reasons that he is genuinely admired is his fluency in Russian. The same applies to Carrie Gracie when she was reporting from China. My question is how can you explain any complex situation if you lack fluency in the language? (Am thinking about the ME in particular here).
Excellent- yep the fog of war. It’s not the same as say some hard left tankie explicit disinformation or it’s more subtle manifestation such as The Guardian in some commentary telling us Ukraine about to be defeated every month or so-still in the fight I see?
The idiots who backed anti- Soviet forces in Afghanistan do so purely through a Cold War lens- Sandy Gall was a prick on that one and the CIA who played with fire and didn’t we all get badly burned in the end?
That does not mean by stating what in hindsight was bleeding obvious that this rabble were never going to be mates, that somehow you like refried Stalinism or its latest manifestation of Russian nationalism in the Kremlin.
Douchet and you Mark are about what the BBC use to get right. Bowen is another matter- v accident prone.