Iran’s State Media Faces Erosion of Relevance

Iran’s state-run media outlet, IRIB, seems to be losing touch with its audience. A recent survey by ISPA indicates that only about 12.5% of Iranians actually turn to state television for news, while only 11.5% watch its movies and series. It’s clear that people have largely shifted their viewing habits or simply stopped tuning in altogether. So, while the infrastructure for broadcasting might still exist, its societal influence appears to be fading.

This decline is significant. The existing media model wasn’t set up to encourage active engagement; rather, it relied on viewers passively consuming information as a constructed version of reality. Once that audience vanished, the impact of repetitive messaging weakened. Now, control over broadcasting channels can’t really compensate for the lack of viewers.

In times of national crisis, when internet outages leave citizens scrambling for reliable information, state television fails to act as a trustworthy source. Instead, it appears to manage narratives—deciding what is shown and what is omitted, often portraying an altered image of the situation rather than the gritty reality.

Broadcasting in Silence

The media landscape in Iran has traditionally served the state’s agenda. State-run TV and various Guard-associated networks like Tasnim and Fars essentially function as tools for governance, rather than as independent news sources. Their messages are meant to resonate in unison, regardless of audience engagement.

Two vital conditions fed into this model: continuous control over distribution channels and the public’s forced acceptance of the official narrative. But when instability strikes, both of these elements face challenges. In response, authorities have tightened their grip on information, blocking platforms, disrupting opposition channels, sidelining independent media, and restricting internet access to control the narrative that gets out into the world.

This approach exposes vulnerabilities. If people are cornered back to a channel they no longer trust, the discrepancies and omissions become glaringly apparent. Simply lacking alternatives isn’t going to restore authority; if anything, it reveals how much credibility has been lost.

Managing Public Perception Through Omission

Iranian state media’s crisis response methods are telling. They often replace troubling political realities with curated depictions of “normalcy.” For instance, amid widespread protests—where chants against the Supreme Leader were common—state television spun the story as merely a consequence of economic strain.

Instead of showing political unrest or casualties, they focused on mundane issues like the availability of chicken, glossing over the fact that prices had skyrocketed recently. By shifting attention from rising costs to mere availability, they constructed a false narrative of stability, thereby sidelining the intrinsic demands of protestors who sought to dismantle oppressive structures.

Moreover, the broadcasts featured coerced confessions from detained protestors, an obvious show of power aimed at scripting guilt rather than convincing skeptics.

From Staged Events to Synthetic Realities

What defines the current media landscape isn’t just the presence of propaganda, but rather the methods employed. Techniques like crowd footage recycling and selective framing have long been staples, but there’s now a growing reliance on digitally manipulated content, which blurs the lines between what’s real and what’s fabricated.

Recent instances highlight this transition. For example, state media shared helicopter footage of government rallies, claiming it was evidence of broad public support. However, viewers quickly began to spot inconsistencies, questioning the authenticity of the footage based on lighting issues and unusual movement.

• Questions Raised Over Manipulated Footage

The state’s reactions have only deepened the cycle of denial and repression. Each new restriction breeds anxiety among the populace, while unanswered questions amplify the decline in trust. The accuracy of specific criticisms often pales compared to the overall reception of state visuals, which are increasingly seen as evidence to be scrutinized rather than taken at face value.

This marks a shift from merely promoting propaganda to creating “evidence” that can be doubted. Ironically, as technology becomes more sophisticated, the erosion of trust happens at a quicker pace.

The Rasht Bazaar Incident: A Tale of One Narrative

The recent fire at the central bazaar in Rasht illustrates how narrative control operates under the veil of power outages. During the protests on January 8 and 9, fires engulfed significant sections of the historic market, exacerbated by internet blackouts that stifled residents’ ability to document the chaos. While state television still broadcasted from the scene, their focus was skewed.

• Official Reports vs. Eyewitness Accounts

The official narrative attributed the fires to protest activity and emphasized property destruction—with no mention of casualties. It highlighted economic losses through selected interviews, seemingly avoiding scrutiny from security forces.

Contrasting this, eyewitness testimonies depict a much more chaotic reality, with people trapped and security forces opening fire on those attempting to surrender. In this fractured environment, state broadcasters operated with technological access but found no willing audience to buy into their version of events.

Crisis of Credibility

Many frame Iran’s media crisis as an access issue, but it runs deeper—essentially, it’s about credibility. Broadcasters may keep producing content, but they’ve lost the ability to foster belief. Control without viewers has limited influence. In politics, if a message isn’t believed, does it even resonate at all?