Via the BBC: Iran bans negative petrol stories
Iran’s top security body has ordered local journalists not to report on problems caused by petrol rationing, a day after its surprise introduction.Angry motorists have reacted violently to the curbs, attacking up to 19 petrol stations in the capital, Tehran.
[…]
The authorities switched off the mobile text messaging system in Tehran overnight to prevent motorists from organising more protests.
[…]
Iranian TV initially did not mention the unrest and mostly interviewed people who said they supported the rationing.
The advantages, so to speak, of authoritarian government…
Pro-government newspapers have fallen in line, although some of the opposition press is not, according to the story.
Iranians are being limited to 100 liters of gasoline a month, or 3 liters a day. (That is 26.41 gallons a month or .79 gallons a day). Which, when one is a oil power, is especially problematic.
Also, inflation is in the 20%-30% range.
Sphere: Related Content
[…] UPDATE: Speaking of the supposedly dominant regime in Tehran, our own Dr. Taylor, a/k/a Poliblogger, reports that they’re banning yet another category of local bad news. Whoopsie! […]
Pingback by Pros and Cons » What an incredible load of horse-puckey loaded down with steaming helpings of chutzpah - UPDATED — Thursday, June 28, 2024 @ 4:35 pm
Um, just to point out the obvious, but isn’t this strategy of Iran precisely the same strategy of the pro-war, “you’re not reporting the good news only the bad news” faction? And doesn’t that just give you the creeps?
Comment by Hal — Friday, June 29, 2024 @ 10:24 am
It gives me the creeps when people liken the regime in Tehran to any major American political party or movement.
What Tehran is doing is state-sponsored censorship, which has nothing to do with arguments made by individuals in the US who support current war efforts. These individuals feel that what they are saying (that bad news gets more press than good news) is factually correct, and are exerting their free speech rights by making that claim. They have a right to do that, and opponents have a right to present evidence to the contrary if they so choose - and they frequently do.
What is happening in Tehran is the exact opposite of that. They are shutting down conversation, shutting down argument. I fail to see the likeness.
Throwing an authoritarian name or association at a group because we disagree with it is an abhorrent practice that has no place in academic discourse except to reaffirm the validity of Godwin’s Law. . .
Comment by CPT D — Friday, June 29, 2024 @ 7:09 pm
“It gives me the creeps when people liken the regime in Tehran to any major American political party or movement”.
Well sir, it shouldn’t really, should it? You’ve got war criminals at the top level of your leadership, they have been exposed as such and your people don’t have the balls or the inclination to do anything about it. Iran hasn’t invaded any foreign country for a couple of hundred years. The best your country has done is something like 17. Your country has brought about the violent death of many hundreds of thousands of people over the last few years, not just your poor backyard neighbours but nations on the other side of the world. Not to mention untold misery to many millions of broken, helpless people.
Your country gives me the creeps: the sick, murderous and hypocritical bastards who talk of democracy but smile at torture and murder. And, besides, who helped shape the Iran of today?
Comment by james — Friday, June 29, 2024 @ 8:20 pm