What Is IRIB's Priority: A Shift in Approach or a Change of Head?

Several media sources have reported in recent days that a change in the head of IRIB may be imminent. These speculations have once again brought the future of the national broadcaster to the center of attention. Rumors of a change in leadership cannot yet be treated as a definitive decision. However, the emergence of this debate, along with criticism of the national media's performance over recent months, has created an opportunity to raise a more fundamental question.

Ambassador Arjan - Political Group: Some media sources have reported the possibility of an imminent change in the head of the Broadcasting Organization in recent days. These speculations have once again brought the future of the national media back to the forefront of attention. At the same time, the criticisms of this organization's approach, from figures with different political orientations and even at the level of the highest executive and legislative officials of the country, have made the question more serious that the issue of radio and television is limited to the stay or departure of a manager, or it comes back to the necessity of reviewing the way of administration and the existential philosophy of a media that is supposed to be the voice of a pluralistic nation.

Speculations regarding the change of the head of the organization cannot be considered as a definite decision yet; But the spirit of the formation of such a discussion, along with the criticisms that have been raised about the performance of the national media in the past months, has provided an opportunity to pose a more fundamental question: What changes does Iran's radio and television need to rebuild its relationship with the society? The answer to this question should not be summed up in the name of the person who sits on the chair. The main issue is the approach that determines what voices will be heard, what narratives will be presented, how political differences will be represented, and how the relationship between the media and the government, society, and national interests will be defined.

Of course, this emphasis on the necessity of transformation should not ignore radio and television services in the exceptional conditions of war. In the 12-day war and then the 40-day war, the continuation of broadcasting programs and information in difficult conditions, along with the activities of journalists, reporters, cameramen and other national media workers, revealed part of the important capacities of this organization. In a situation where military attacks and psychological pressure had affected the daily life and security of society, the continuity of media activity and transmission of news and information played an important role in communicating with public opinion. Keeping the antenna under threat and attack conditions was not just a technical achievement; It required organizational preparation, planning and the efforts of employees who continued their duties in a high-risk situation.

This part of the national media record deserves to be seen; But right at this point, a distinction must be made between two different functions of the media. The ability to maintain broadcasting and information in war conditions is a professional and security necessity; The ability to maintain public trust in normal and tense political conditions is a continuous and more complex test. A media may play an effective role in providing information during the war, but in order to maintain its authority and credibility in the post-war era, it must be able to reflect the diversity of views, concerns and demands of the society. Success in the first test does not eliminate the importance of the second test.

Incidentally, the experience of war can be a good starting point for rethinking the mission of the national media. In days of external threat, what binds society together is not simply sharing an official narrative; The feeling of belonging to a common land and concern about its future also play a decisive role. Iran's defense, people's security and maintaining territorial integrity are issues beyond factional differences. The media that wants to represent such a national subscription must be able to maintain this capital even after the end of the emergency; Not to limit the field of dialogue and turn it into a temporary and crisis-related issue.

One of the important issues in evaluating radio and television is the ratio between "national media" and "partisan media". The national media is not supposed to eliminate political differences or bring all citizens to a single understanding of the country's issues. A society that is politically, culturally, socially and generationally diverse naturally has different voices and interpretations. The mission of the public media is not to deny these differences, but to enable their fair representation within the framework of professional rules and social responsibility. National unity is not achieved by unifying voices; Stable unity is formed when different groups of the society, despite their differences, feel that they are seen in the public space and have the possibility to propose arguments and criticism.

If parts of the society feel that the media, which is managed with public resources, only reflects the views of a political current or instead of criticizing the performances, it is placed in the position of judging the legitimacy of different views, the distance between that media and the audience will increase. This gap cannot be bridged simply by increasing budgets, developing equipment, or producing expensive programs. Media trust is a product of the audience's frequent experience of honesty, fairness, precision, diversity and professional independence; A capital that is built gradually and can be damaged by repeating one-sided narratives.

The important question is, has the radio and television adapted itself to changing social expectations, diversity of lifestyles, generational changes and the audience's need to access authentic information? In news and analysis programs, is it possible to have different viewpoints? Can critics of official policies express their arguments in a professional and responsible framework? Is the national media ready to listen to the society as much as it is ready to convey the message?

The answer to these questions requires that the audience is not considered a subject for one-sided persuasion, but an active party in media communication. In this regard, independent surveys, transparent evaluation of performance, publication of quantifiable data about the size and composition of audiences, and acceptance of expert criticism become important. If there is a difference of opinion about the size of the audience or the effectiveness of the programs, the solution is not to insist on disputed figures, but methodological transparency and the possibility of independent evaluation. A media that expects trust from the society must also build trust through accountability and transparency.

It should not be assumed that the issue of radio and television will be solved by the introduction of a new president. Sustainable reform requires a review of the selection criteria of managers, accountability mechanisms, news policies, variety of programs, how to deal with critics, and the organization's relationship with the media professional community. It should also be clarified what responsibility the national media has towards Iran's pluralistic society and how it can simultaneously adhere to public interests, news accuracy, professional independence and national security requirements. None of these goals can be achieved by excluding the other. National security requires accurate information and public trust; National cohesion depends on citizens being heard; And media credibility does not last without fairness and accountability.

News about the possibility of a change in the head of the radio and television can become an opportunity to raise a public demand; A demand that makes sense not in support of this or that person, but in defense of the necessity of rebuilding the trust and efficiency of the national media. If a manager changes but the organization's management logic remains the same, the problem will be reproduced in a different form. If there is talk of reforming the approach, but the managerial will, organizational structure, and response mechanisms do not change, the transformation will become an unfinished program.

The main issue of the radio and television is not the name of the person who is at the head of it; The problem is the type of relationship that this media establishes with society. A change of manager makes sense when it paves the way for a change in approach, organizational culture and performance criteria. The national media can represent the title of "national" in practice when it considers itself to belong to all of the people, not only in the days of war, but also in the daily life of the people. A media that increases the possibility of mutual understanding instead of reproducing bipolars, and instead of demanding trust, obtains it through honesty, fairness and listening to diverse voices.