Emergence of Election Phenomenon
The phenomenon of the upcoming election is evident as we approach the 4-hour debates among the 6 presidential candidates. Star Beychoon and why the election podiums of the national TV and radio are still hosted by Hossein Entezami, who some mockingly say, ‘We vote for him.’
Entezami, however, participates as a cultural expert in the election podiums and has posed questions to the 4 candidates so far, challenging the conservative candidates and pushing all four to contradict themselves or express different points than what they had said before. This behavior has created the expectation that he will also treat the remaining two candidates in the same way so as not to be accused of supporting a specific candidate.
Although it can be guessed which candidate he will vote for, as a media person and critic, he limits information and perspectives and advocates for media freedom. His criterion is the freedom of the media, and he has not intervened in this inclination. Instead, he has taught the hosts how to ask questions precisely.
Hosts whose role has been reduced to mere timekeepers.
The reason why Vahid Jalili is the man number 2 in the radio is a question that can be asked from his brother and possibly his supporter, Saeed Jalili. Making fun and satire tools for many people is not believable, but Entezami has done this. Some think beyond that he has been the manager of the radio and television newspaper for years and actually the founder of it.
Critics have accused him because he is close to Ali Larijani and intends to take revenge and disqualify him. But they have denied these claims. Besides, he has only raised specialized questions and shown what media work means, which is not related to Mr. Larijani.
Hossein Entezami has been a representative of media managers in the Press Supervisory Board for 7 consecutive terms, and his highest votes were from what are known as the body and social media. It is not unreasonable to say that he holds the pulse of society.
Although he started with public and major media, he is not a stranger to the private sector. He also has experience managing the media group in the private sector, including the daily newspaper Khabar. While he began with right-wing newspapers, he eventually moved towards the moderate wing and in the Rouhani government, he first became the media deputy and then the head of the cinema organization.
Through over 30 years of dominance and continuous work in the media, many people may assume that he is a master of communication sciences, hence the title of doctor at the beginning of his name. However, like Abbas Abdi and Sadegh Zibakalam, his bachelor’s degree is in chemical engineering and he continued in that field. But his doctorate is not related to chemistry or communication sciences; rather, it is in strategic management. Despite all this, he has worked in the media field, especially media management, for over three decades, and he is a respected figure with ideas and experiences.
Most of those who have studied in technical and engineering fields at the bachelor’s and master’s levels and then pursued a doctorate in other fields are often categorized and have a structured mindset. If it feels like their logic is stricter than that of the guests or sometimes contradictory, it may be for this reason.
Roundtables became a topic of discussion sooner than expected because fundamentally, significant events must happen in debates, and that too from the candidates’ mouths, not from the experts who are usually conservative. However, in these few days, what has caused a stir is Hossein Ansari, who as a cultural expert posed simple questions to 4 conservative candidates and they couldn’t give straightforward answers, even if, like Zakani, they claimed to love such questions with their unique tone.
In the first roundtable, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf was asked to share his opinion on filtering. It was reminded that as the head of the parliament, he was a member of multiple high councils and often acted as the acting head of those councils. Suddenly, he was asked to explain about the imprisonment of his two critics and whether he was the complainant or not, without any intention of destruction. In fact, Mr. Ghalibaf tried to take advantage of the situation.
Whether the audience accepted it or not, and the validity of the claims made by those who published his complaints is another discussion, but it attracted attention to the extent that we remember what other two experts ask.
The main question, however, was when asked if you said you are critical of some aspects of the current government, does the current Minister of Guidance fall into that category or not, and he did not give a precise answer. In the second roundtable, Amirhossein Ghazizadeh Hashemi was asked if he intends to withdraw after the debates and not ask serious questions with this technique, he was made to say ‘I stay’.
He did not ask directly and explicitly ‘I stay’ or not, he raised another conditional issue.
In the third roundtable discussion, Saeed Jalili made a masterpiece on the subject of hijab, introducing a new term into debates and even daily conversations. Strategic depth and humor were created, not that strategic depth was meaningless or funny, but to avoid giving a direct answer, he would hit the wall and come down from the peak to reach strategic depth. A year ago, Entezami criticized putting hijab and chastity together in an interview, stating that hijab is related to appearance and chastity is internal, and with this background, it was clear that there was no reason to ask.
In the fourth roundtable discussion, the question about hijab enforcers was directed at the current mayor of Tehran, whether it was at his command or not. Zakani was forced to say that only hijab enforcers are related to him and more clearly, he did not take responsibility for metro hijab enforcers.
Mr. Zakani quickly realized that this directive also lacked the strategic depth. Therefore, he declared the innocence of some station hijab enforcers, questioning what more Hossein Entezami wanted.
What has angered the authorities, but is the same point above, is the question asked to Qalibaf if he becomes president, will he retain the current Minister of Guidance or not. The question did not seem sensitive, but it did not sit well with the taste of the Ministry of Guidance, and apparently, they have also complained about him.
The same Ministry of Guidance that once had two important deputies in charge of its media and cinema sectors, shows that the current government is very different from the previous one.
Up to this point, even before the debates began, Hossein Entezami has impressed to the extent that some have thought he is a candidate in the elections or wished he were. This indicates what the secret of the decline of the state television is. Such questions should have been raised by the presenters. However, the role of Mehdi Mahdigholi in the forefront, or Ms. Neda Sepanlou in the economic roundtable, or Jafar Khusrovi in the cultural roundtable, have practically been left in the hands of Mr. Entezami for program direction.
So far, two mysteries have been solved. First, why Masoud Pezeshkian was approved, and second, why Hossein Entezami challenges the candidates as an expert. They say it is for increasing participation.
Well, if the goal is to increase participation, what’s wrong with high participation? Evidence actually shows that the higher the participation, the better the luck of the candidates, unless Mr. Entezami’s soap also affects him.
Persian
مشاهده این مقاله به زبان فارسی
