To wonder why the mainstream media is not reporting the massive anti-regime protests in Iran?

[supernaturalmilkshake]

There are currently massive anti-Islamic regime protests all over Iran by civilians, many of them chanting for the return of the Shah.

These protestors are incredibly brave, many of them have been killed, shot or taken away by the regime police.

The protests, some of them hundreds of thousands strong, all over Iran have been widely reported and documented by exiled Iranians on places like Twitter/X but the mainstream news has been strangely silent, especially the BBC that would normally have non-stop, headline reporting if this was about happening anywhere else.

AIBU to hope the regime falls and that the Iranians finally taste freedom after 47 years (and that the BBC should be reporting on this)?

“Monitoring” and what though? What exactly are you expecting to happen next? MN to delete threads or for them to keep a log on users?

Because it took BBC TV News many days to report on the situation, at least a week after my journalist cousin made me aware of what was happening in Iran. The thread you refer to was begun before the situation became front page news in the UK.

You haven't explained what is wrong with people posted on MN who aren't based in England/UK?

I think it is being!

Personally I would prefer more monitoring of some posters yes.

‘Monitoring’? That has quite an East German ring to it.
What form should this ‘monitoring’ take?

I’m interested too.

Don’t play dumb, it’s very clear that posters who are posting untruths should be monitored and challenged. And I also think that US based Trump fans should post on their own parenting websites.

Once again, please post examples of posts you believe are untruthful.

The problem with an echo chamber, which is what you're proposing Mumsnet is turned into, is that it cuts you off from the rest of society, leaving you unable to engage which might challenge your current thinking. You can't expand your knowledge and understanding, nor can you expand anyone else's.

It's why people seem so convinced that there are huge numbers of bots on whatever social media they use, but only being used to support people they disagree with.

Everyone that uses Mumsnet has a choice, engage with the debate and try and persuade others to your way of thinking (while hopefully listening to their views too), report harmful content, or avoid the discussion entirely.

You’re being facetious but I’ll play along.

The entire concept of this thread, that MSM aren’t reporting on this news story, where as demonstrated by numerous posters with links to reports across varied sources it clearly is being widely reported.

You can challenge whoever you want on here (as long as you don’t break the talk guidelines), no need for MN to interfere because someone’s defending Trump or whatever.
You’re still not saying what kind of monitoring you envision - logging everyone expressing opinions you deem unacceptable?
As for your insistence to keep US based Trump supporters off this site, I agree with @ErroltheSwampDragon - what use is there in echo chambers?

That’s not how mn works. But you can start your own site where you limit it or find one that does.

And as you’re watching this so closely you’ll also know that many senior BBC leaders then appeared at a Public Accounts committee to discuss the situation in detail, over a number of hours.

They’re streamed live on the parliament website, you can probably still watch the archive if you want to.

I asked a serious question. The Iranian revolution is now covered by MSM but wasn't widely reported when the thread began. It certainly wasn't headline news on BBC TV News for starters - you know the nation's news broadcaster whose News CEO recently resigned before she was sacked.

No, reputable online news sources will control which are their headlines, that’s not controlled by algorithms.

You can personalise to give more prominence to specific topics, but the top headlines won’t be controlled by algorithms.

And as this is the internet so guess what, anyone can reply, wild isn’t it?

You clearly seem to have trouble understanding how world news is covered, as things escalate they rise up the news agenda, until something else more newsworthy happens, and something else takes its place.

It’s not decided by who wants to complain the most on the internet.

And as various posters have taken the time to research, it was reported before this thread was started, it just didn’t make headline news until it had escalated.

We'll, @Skinnysaluki? Which precise posts do you think are untruthful? You can report them to MNHQ if they breach MN rules.

This is just completely untrue, and I would say that someone with an agenda is involved with that Wiki.

Buddhism has often proselytised, that's why so many Buddhist teachers began appearing in the US in the hippie era, for example. It went to a lot of effort to make itself more amenable to the American mindset and culture with some real success.

Typically the differernce between missionary and non-missionary religions is that the missionary ones are universalist - the religion teaches that it exists to help all people. The religions that are not missionary typically teach that they are meant only for certain groups of people.

If a religion believes that it exists to help everyone then there is a push from within to make it available and accessible to as many people as possible.

I find it interesting that this has happened when journalists are more likely to be university educated than ever - you'd think, on the face of it, they would be all the more qualified to give that kind of background.

I do think part of it is probably because there isn't the money to pay people to write that kind of content, which takes time and care.

In any case, US readers here are a minority, and Trump supporting ones even more so. But they often add an interesting perspective that is really useful for discussions.

I think the point posters who disagree with you are trying to make is that, in their view, the importance of this, even early on, seemed to go unrecognised - it should have been a much bigger story than it was.

SO they question why it wasn't given more prominence.

Thank you. This is exactly the point I was trying to make but it appeared to go over some people's heads.

It’s not gone over anyone’s heads, it is, as I said before that very often until a global story escalates it’s not deemed headline news in the UK.

Similarly there will be many UK based news stories that are reported here that will barely get a mention elsewhere or would be totally ignored, news is targeted to the region it’s being delivered to.

I personally didn't find my degree taught me the skills needed to understand and analyse the complexity of the world (studied a humanity at a decent uni and got a 2:1). There was a lot of focus on critical analysis for papers but this was always fairly simplistic (e.g. comparing sources from two experts with opposing theoretical perspectives).
Comparatively, to understand something like the protests in Iran you'd have to be able to find your own sources, assess them, and make an informed judgement. And you'd have to do this for every facet of the country, including its global role
It seems like a combination of lack of skill (particularly from journalists who have defended the coverage but not applied the same restraint elsewhere) and the resources to do proper investigative journalism.
I heard the BBC used to make their journalists do a lot more training to bring them up to standard, so the loss if this probably played a part in its decline.

I've been hearing about it- certainly a lot on Radio 4.