Farzan Seyedi explains why he used the IAC National Summit to challenge Western media coverage of Iran, the protest movement, Reza Pahlavi, and the risks of reporting during an internet blackout.
One of the most direct questions I received at the IAC National Summit came from moderator Marjan Keypour Greenblatt. She asked why so much Western coverage seemed unable to capture the full character of what was happening inside Iran and why reporting so often treated the opposition's leadership and political direction with skepticism. My answer was intentionally forceful because I believe the media's choices have consequences when people are risking their lives under a dictatorship.
There is a legitimate role for skepticism in journalism. I am not asking reporters to become activists, and I do not believe every claim from an opposition figure should be published without verification. In fact, the opposite is necessary: when the internet is cut, casualty figures are uncertain, and propaganda is circulating from multiple sides, journalists should label what is verified, what is estimated, and what comes from activists or government sources. But skepticism should be applied consistently. Too often, the Islamic Republic receives the benefit of institutional language while its opponents are treated as if their motives are inherently suspect.
During the panel, I connected that problem to the history of 1979. I argued that ideological movements were not created in isolation inside Iran and that foreign political currents, international media, and outside governments affected the environment in which the revolution developed. Some of those historical claims remain deeply debated, and any article addressing them should distinguish documented events from interpretation. My larger point was about consequences: narratives created outside Iran can influence how the world understands Iranian political actors inside and outside the country.
I was especially concerned about the tendency to treat patriotism as something embarrassing or politically suspicious. Iranian protesters have repeatedly used national symbols, historical references, and slogans that reject the Islamic Republic's ideological identity. That deserves to be reported as part of the movement, even when it complicates the categories that Western audiences are accustomed to using.
The same applies to Reza Pahlavi. Journalists do not have to endorse him. They should, however, accurately report the size, visibility, and persistence of support for him when it appears in demonstrations, diaspora events, social media, or public statements. Ignoring that evidence does not make coverage neutral. It creates a distorted picture in the opposite direction.
I also raised the Iran Prosperity Project because serious political coverage should include the opposition's plans for governance, not just its slogans against the present regime. Whether reporters agree with every proposal is beside the point. If transition plans exist on economics, energy, security, and government continuity, they should be examined on their merits. That is a more useful journalistic question than assuming that the end of the Islamic Republic automatically means chaos.
My message to the media was therefore not 'repeat what I say.' It was: do not look away, and do not reduce Iran to the language produced by the regime. Talk to dissidents, activists, families, former prisoners, experts, labor organizers, monarchists, republicans, minorities, and ordinary Iranians. Verify aggressively. Correct mistakes. Attribute uncertain claims. But keep the Iranian people's struggle visible, especially when the government is working to make it invisible.