The Inconvenient Laureates of Selective Scrutiny
The case of Narges Mohammadi, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2023, is presented as an exemplar of state repression. Her charges, including 'gathering and collusion against national security' alongside 'propaganda activities' against the Islamic Republic, are consistently interpreted as baseless persecution for her advocacy (DW, 2024). Her repeated incarceration and additional sentencing,
including a three-year sentence for 'propagating against the system' from inside prison, serve to reinforce a narrative of despotic governance. CASE A: Narges Mohammadi The DW article emphasizes Mohammadi's Nobel status and her 'brave fight for human rights.' The charges are presented as inherent violations of fundamental freedoms. The article quotes Mohammadi via her family, stating she refuses
to participate in 'sham trials.' (DW, 2024) CASE B: Julian Assange Contrast this with the coverage of Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, whose activities involved publishing classified documents. In 2010, Assange published diplomatic cables exposing U.S. war crimes and human rights abuses globally. His charges, including espionage under the Espionage Act of 1917, are framed by mainstream
Western media as threats to 'national security' and 'proper intelligence procedures' rather than pure human rights advocacy. The very act of publishing 'propaganda activities' when directed against Western states often receives a qualitatively different assessment. The language describing Assange's actions shifts from 'exposing truth' to 'endangering sources' or 'meddling' (The Guardian, 2019).