Egypt to Iran: Mind not advertising for assassins on state media?

posted at 10:12 am on January 8, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Relations between Egypt and Iran could hardly get colder — but the mullahcracy doesn’t mind trying.  Cairo lodged a protest this week with Tehran over an advertisement published by the Fars news agency, offering a million dollars to whomever successfully assassinates Hosni Mubarak:

Egypt is demanding Iran bring to justice the authors of an advertisement calling on Iranians to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

The advertisement was published by the Iranian Fars News agency on Sunday by a student group.

The announcement was in Persian and offered a reward of $1 million to whoever would carry out the deed, against the backdrop of Egypt’s refusal to open the Rafah border with Gaza.

Most people consider Fars to be a state media outlet.  Egypt pointed that out in their protest, suggesting that the publication of this bounty would be seen as an official act unless steps were taken against the student group that bought the advertisement.  The Iranians rebutted that claim, saying that Fars is a private enterprise and that they have no control over its content.

Egypt responded to that argument, with perhaps a bit of a Freudian slip:

As to Teheran’s insistence on disassociating itself with Fars, Al-Fiqqi said, “In a state like Iran it is impossible to talk about news agencies or organizations that are not under state control,” he said.

“This is not Britain or the United States. This is Iran and everything there is planned and organized. If something comes out of Iran, the authorities know about it and can stop it and if there’s incitement, the state is responsible,” he said.

Of course, Al-Fiqqi is correct.  And just as certainly, Al-Fiqqi’s description of Iran also applies to Egypt.  He speaks from experience, as the media are tightly controlled in his country, as well as most of the Arab states in the region, with the notable exceptions of Iraq and Lebanon.

The two counterexamples Al-Fiqqi uses are also telling.  First, he acknowledges the freedom of speech that exists in America and the UK and that doesn’t exist in Iran.  However, an advertisement like that would never have appeared in an American or British newspaper, not because our governments censor it, but because our societies reject terrorism and assassinations so totally that no editor would ever countenance such an advertisement.

What does it say about the mullahcracy that their primary news agency, even if not controlled directly by the state (which it is), did countenance such an advertisement?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

LOL. Maybe the Israeli’s have taken a page from Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos playbook.

JiangxiDad on January 8, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Maybe Egypt will become allied with Israel & carry out a joint operation to take out Iran’s nukes?

Naaaa.

jgapinoy on January 8, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Iran linked to terror? the duece you say. In other news the Sun rose today in the east…

unseen on January 8, 2009 at 10:17 AM

JiangxiDad on January 8, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Heh. Nothing wrong with using gasoline to put out fires.

a capella on January 8, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Classic on so many levels.

awake on January 8, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Ed, you give our media too much credit.

faraway on January 8, 2009 at 10:28 AM

The Iranians rebutted that claim, saying that Fars is a private enterprise and that they have no control over its content.

Someone’s been playing close attention to Obama’s handlers.

fogw on January 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM

jgapinoy on January 8, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Mubarak doesn’t want to piss off his population, though I’m sure in his head he’d actually love it.

Darth Executor on January 8, 2009 at 10:30 AM

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The enemy of my friends enemy’s cousin’s brother is…hold on…I mean the enemy of my friends brother’s cousin is…that’s not right either…let me get back to you on this.”

Amendment X on January 8, 2009 at 10:32 AM

“…no editor would ever countenance such an advertisement.”

Hmm, if enough money was offered to place the ad, I’m not 100% sure Pinch Sulzberger of the NY Times would turn it down. After all, it is news, isn’t it? Of course, he might include a disclaimer — just to cover his liberal ass.

Barb Dwyer on January 8, 2009 at 10:32 AM

The two counterexamples Al-Fiqqi uses are also telling. First, he acknowledges the freedom of speech that exists in America and the UK and that doesn’t exist in Iran. However, an advertisement like that would never have appeared in an American or British newspaper, not because our governments censor it, but because our societies reject terrorism and assassinations so totally that no editor would ever countenance such an advertisement.

Advertisements of that nature? No. Op-eds by terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and useful idiots who excuse terrorism when there’s Israel bashing to be done? Absolutely promoted by US media.

lawhawk on January 8, 2009 at 10:33 AM

However, an advertisement like that would never have appeared in an American or British newspaper, not because our governments censor it, but because our societies reject terrorism and assassinations so totally that no editor would ever countenance such an advertisement.

Boy, ain’t that the truth.Well, unless the ad was promoting killing Bush or Cheny. Ed is being very generous to the NYT and WAPO here.

MikeA on January 8, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Advertisements of that nature? No. Op-eds by terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and useful idiots who excuse terrorism when there’s Israel bashing to be done? Absolutely promoted by US media.

lawhawk on January 8, 2009 at 10:33 AM

The sad truth.

peski on January 8, 2009 at 10:42 AM

This is an example of why I think Israel has some latitude in Gaza, and may be able to pull off a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear program if possible. Iran has painted itself into a corner with the over-the-top “Death to Israel!!” message.

Oh, her neighbors might think the same thing, but they’d rather not have it splashed across headlines around the globe.

cs89 on January 8, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Just as a sham democracy is presented and controlled by Khamenie, so is “dissent” against the government a likely manufactured product as well. And of course Khamenie authorized the assassins reward.

BL@KBIRD on January 8, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Iran has painted itself into a corner with the over-the-top “Death to Israel!!” message.

cs89 on January 8, 2009 at 10:49 AM

and it doesn’t help neighborly relations much when the message is followed by “And Death to the Arabs too!”

DarkCurrent on January 8, 2009 at 11:08 AM

In both the UK and USA, offering money to commit murder is a serious crime, never mind the absence of gubmint censorship.

LimeyGeek on January 8, 2009 at 11:34 AM

What does it say about the mullahcracy that their primary news agency, even if not controlled directly by the state (which it is), did countenance such an advertisement?

Look at Iranian history since at least the 18th century and you’ll have your answer.

irishspy on January 8, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Someone’s been playing close attention to Obama’s handlers.

fogw on January 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM

I thought that was Al “no controlling legal authority” Gore.

MarkTheGreat on January 8, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Hmm, if enough money was offered to place the ad, I’m not 100% sure Pinch Sulzberger of the NY Times would turn it down.
Barb Dwyer on January 8, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Depends on who the target was. If it was Bush, he just might. If it was Obama, never.

MarkTheGreat on January 8, 2009 at 12:25 PM

no editor would ever countenance such an advertisement.

Keep clinging to that fantasy, Ed. It will comfort you in your golden years.

SKYFOX on January 8, 2009 at 12:34 PM

I can think of half a dozen so-called “progressive alternative” weeklies in my home state that would happily run an ad putting a bounty on the heads of President Bush, or Dick Cheney or basically anyone on the national stage with an (R) after their name.

And if called out on it, these papers’ editors would explain that they were a) “speaking truth to power”,
b) only “joking” and “gee why cant you wingnuts take
a joke” or c) “just asking questions.”

A week later the same paper would feature multiple letters from readers praising the “courage” of the paper for telling those Hateful Criminal Warbots where they can go.

Mike D. on January 8, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Perhaps Iran is a little less prosperous because of the recent dips in oil prices. They needed the cash so they opted to allow the add. It’s about the money…

DL13 on January 8, 2009 at 12:49 PM

What does it say about the mullahcracy that their primary news agency, even if not controlled directly by the state (which it is), did countenance such an advertisement?

I’d say it’s tantamount to a declaration of war.

rbj on January 8, 2009 at 12:52 PM

if i had a million dollars to spend, i might offer it to the first person who videotapes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the throes of lovemaking with his male goat.

so i can only offer 1.00

thanks

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on January 8, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Ed, while you might be right about not accepting an ad here, our liberal left loons have no qualms about making movies that show plans to assassinate President Bush. When they did, we got all the rationalizations they have, “truth to power” etc. Liberal/progressives are irrational emos, not thinkers, no matter how much they protest. They sit in their little circle of friends and are lauded for their “brilliance” when some idiotic fantasy issues from their lips. Zero correlation with the real world, especially the world of terrorism and socialist tyrannies.

Webrider on January 8, 2009 at 4:38 PM

However, an advertisement like that would never have appeared in an American or British newspaper, not because our governments censor it, but because

… the editors and publishers wouldn’t want to be convicted of incitement to murder; a rather serious criminal offence in civilised countries.

YiZhangZhe on January 9, 2009 at 7:48 AM

The UK doesn’t have free press over there. The ministry I work for tried to play an ad on the radio over there and the UK officials heard the ad and said it was too controversial. There wasn’t anything very harsh on there unless you consider the word “brest-feeding” to be some dirty word that will set the masses in a rage. The real reason they didn’t want us to advertise was because they feared the homosexuals who hated Jesus would protest against a Christian ad. And if I’m not mistaken, it was actually the controlling government agency that wouldn’t let us play the ad.

NeverLiberal on January 9, 2009 at 8:21 AM