Feeling Threatened by 'In the Margins' and Three Fundamental Issues

Following the protest of the Minister of Health and the President of the Medical Council against the comedy series 'In the Margins' (even before its broadcast began), an advisor to the President of the Medical Council announced the readiness of more than seven thousand doctors to participate in a gathering against the state television's approach to airing the mentioned series. Beyond the artistic quality of the series and the backgrounds of its creators, as well as the state television's history in dealing with real reports, satire, and various social groups, why do members of a profession feel occupationally threatened by the airing of a comedic television program (even if it is trivial and insulting)? Why is it that in other countries, in dozens of television series, some members of the police, teachers, doctors, nurses, university professors, firefighters, and other respected professions, ethnicities, and religions are portrayed as negative characters in various comedic, police, and dramatic series without any protests? Why is a highly educated social group afraid of criticism or satire? Is there a social and economic background for this fear? Let's first consider the issue from the perspective of some Iranian doctors. The protesting Iranian doctors and officials speaking on their behalf say: 1. The state radio and television have targeted the medical profession not only in this series but also in other programs, portraying them negatively (as greedy, bribery-takers, and indifferent to the needs of the people and medical ethics), while not addressing other professions to this extent; this damages the trust between doctor and patient, which is essential to this profession; 2. In fewer programs or series from state television, the services of doctors are accurately reported or displayed to establish a balance between negative and positive reports; even in a single program, both faces of reality do not coexist; and 3. If any other profession were to be severely attacked and its members ridiculed, they would protest similarly. Protesting is a natural right of all professions and individuals and should not be surprising. Those who consider the stance of part of the medical community on this issue to be incorrect say: 1. Iranian doctors, like clergy, consider their profession sacred and themselves above criticism and satire, elevating satire about this profession to the level of insulting the sacred; 2. They do not want their work-related issues, such as receiving under-the-table payments (in addition to set tariffs), to be reflected in the media; they want to keep the public in the dark; and 3. If no member of a profession or religious and ethnic group is to be criticized or satirized, and if any individual from a profession or ethnicity represents all members of that profession or ethnicity, it becomes impossible for the media to create fictional or news reports. An individual who commits murder, bribery, sexual harassment, or any crime has a job, and if their job is mentioned, it is naturally impossible to report the incident. Especially in the realm of storytelling, work becomes difficult without such specifications. The issue here is not the state television's handling of the commissioning and continuation of the airing of the mentioned comedy series nor the protests of part of the doctors. This is not a specific case. The problems are deeper and relate to the social and media policies of the government. The first problem is the low or declining capacity for acceptability of criticism and questioning in society and the media. The authoritarian system and closed society have accustomed individuals with status and power to sit above criticism and questioning. Social classes, professions, and religious groups are following the model of rulers who should not be subjected to satire and questioning (this also applied to protests related to the television series 'Ancient Land') and are seeking the same privileges as the ruling classes. If members of the clergy and the IRGC (Wilayat Shiites) are above criticism and satire, why shouldn't members of professions such as teachers, doctors, hairdressers, nurses, and ethnic groups like Turks, Lors, Kurds, Baluchs, Zoroastrians, Sunnis, dervishes, Christians, and Jews be the same? In this regard, the government's media policy is catching up with itself. The second problem is the discrimination between classes and professions in media behaviors. Unfortunately, protesting doctors do not explicitly state their main claim. Their unspoken claim is, 'Why should military personnel, clerics, and other powerful individuals, who have more merit for criticism and satire due to their power, be exempt from these matters while doctors are subjected to them? There should be a relationship between power, social status, and the level of criticism and satire in public media.' They also seek the privileges of the powerful and ruling classes but refrain from expressing this demand. Of course, if the media is to address the problems of professions in a comedic or non-comedic manner, they must start somewhere. The third problem is the decrease in social trust and the social authority of professions and the civil institutions related to them. A group that sees itself as fragile will naturally show more sensitivity to criticism and satire. Members of a profession who have a close relationship with their clients do not become frightened by a television satire. With the decline of social capital in Iran and the weakening of bonds between service providers and recipients, this fragility has increased. Furthermore, civil institutions related to professions in Iran lack independence and see public relations crises as a tool to enhance their social power. The Medical Council or Engineering Council operates under the oversight of vetting and state approval of their managers and are aware that members and other citizens do not see them as independent and therefore do not trust them. The actions taken by the Medical Council in launching a protest campaign against 'In the Margins' have not been in the interest of the community and the medical profession but rather in the interest of the organization itself.