I was struck by a newspaper cover that said: “Amir is not a terrorist and we must free him”referring to the case of an Iranian soccer player, Amir Nasr-Azadani, who is allegedly accused by the government of his country for crimes that can lead to a death sentence.
Seeing said cover, and after so much content that is circulating about this news, it provoked various opposing ideas, which I will be structuring below.
When a newspaper says: “Amir is not a terrorist and must be released”, it makes me think of the incredible responsibility of a means of communication, or a communicator, when transmitting a message. The success of a communicator depends intimately, in my opinion, on preserving the purity of his transmitted message, when reaching his target audience; a communicator does not speak just to speak. It’s that easy! Namely: little by little the statement: “Amir is not a terrorist and we must free him” does not give us to understand that “Amir, because he is a footballer, is not a terrorist and that is why we must free him”; Or where does the published statement that he is not a terrorist come from? Rather, I would like to ask who wrote that sentence: What do you know about Amir, other than he is a footballer?
My objective in this column is not to investigate if Amir is really innocent, nor is it to know if the sentence is fair or not.; My goal is not to defend Amir, nor to defend the position of the alleged condemners of him. I say “supposed”, because until now I have not seen an official source that details the subject of the sentence; the deepest I have read was what the BBC has published based on “BBC Monitoring investigations based on undisclosed sources”; Secondly, I met official Iranian sources who deny the news.
It is sad to see how we get carried away with the news, as we become slaves to feelings, without looking for the reason behind things. It is sad to see a message, like the one mentioned, so badly structured from a media outlet. I’m not saying it because of a political position regarding the subject matter, but I’m saying it as a communication specialist.
If I believe that “Amir is not a terrorist and he must be released”, then logically I must believe that “Juan N -for example- is a terrorist and must be killed”? Personally, I am not in favor of taking anyone’s life, no matter how “bad” it is. No one has a right over the human life of others!
The media confusion generated around this type of news was something I experienced firsthand; My thoughts go back to 2012, when the conflict in Syria was at its worst, my parents from Aleppo told me very different things to what was circulating in the media. Most of the television stations published highly manipulated news, without real analysis, and fueled by the interest of an infinity of political actors.
It sounds very simple, but in truth it is not when it comes to human life. In this same context, I wonder: how do we know the truth in Amir’s case? I fully support Amir’s right to life, just as I fully support anyone’s right to live., regardless of their profession, age, race, color or national origin. I don’t care if Amir is a footballer or not, this person has to be released if he is innocent. If Amir is guilty, he will have to face the consequences, which at no time do I agree that one of them is to take his life. It is not as Shakira said, that “the World Cup cannot be more important than human life”, rather: nothing is more important than human life!
I end up reflecting: where was Shakira, and everyone else, when thousands of people were being killed, unfairly, in different parts of the world?
Aboud Onji. Communicologist and Engineer. Master in Communication Management, Master in Energy Sustainability, Member of the Spanish Association of Communication Managers DIRCOM. Expert in international and Middle East politics.
