The Iranian Revolution Through Newspapers of 1979

On the morning of Saturday, May 12, 1979, Iranians heading to newsstands found a conspicuous absence: Āyandigān, one of the country’s largest and most independent newspapers, was missing. Days earlier, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—who had taken power just three months before—had denounced the paper as “depraved,” and state-run radio had repeatedly branded it “counterrevolutionary.” That day’s edition carried a single story: a plea to the new government to honor the free press, which the paper insisted had been a tenet of the revolution itself. The scene captures a pivotal moment when the revolutionary press, once muzzled by the Shah’s secret police, now faced a new set of constraints. This article draws on contemporary newspapers, archival collections, and eyewitness accounts to show how Iranians experienced the revolution through the pages of their dailies—what they read, feared, and hoped for as the old order collapsed and a new one emerged.

What Happened?

The Iranian Revolution of 1978–79 was a largely peaceful uprising that replaced the monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi with a system of governance ruled by the clergy and headed by Ayatollah Khomeini. The roots of the revolution lay in profound socio-economic changes during the Shah’s rule, driven by oil revenues. A near doubling of the population, rapid urbanization, increasing inequality, and rising inflation created widespread discontent. Pressure from the Carter administration in Washington to address human rights and rein in the Shah’s notorious security service, SAVAK, further weakened the regime. By late 1977, dissent was growing, and by 1978, mass protests and strikes had engulfed the country.

The press played a crucial role in these events. Under the Shah, newspapers were heavily censored by SAVAK. But as the revolution gained momentum, the press regained much of its freedom. The University of Manchester’s Nashriyah collection, which digitizes more than 12,000 pages of Iranian newspapers, documents this transformation. It covers the premiership of Mohammad Mossadegh in the 1950s, the 1979 Revolution, and the reform era of the late 1990s. The collection provides a unique insight into the political, cultural, and social attitudes of the time.

Key events of the revolution, as reported in the press, include:

• January 1979: The Shah flees Iran after months of strikes and protests.
• February 1, 1979: Khomeini returns from exile in Paris to a massive welcome in Tehran.
• February 11, 1979: The monarchy is formally overthrown; the Islamic Republic is declared.
• March 1979: A referendum approves the establishment of an Islamic republic.
• May 1979: Tensions between the new government and the independent press come to a head, as seen with Āyandigān.

The incident with Āyandigān on May 12, 1979, was a turning point. The paper’s single story pleaded with the new government to embrace press freedom, arguing that it had been a core principle of the revolution. The state’s response—labeling the paper “counterrevolutionary”—signaled a growing intolerance for dissent.

How It Was Seen at the Time

Contemporaries understood the revolution as a triumph of the people over tyranny, but they also feared its direction. The language used in newspapers and radio broadcasts was charged with revolutionary fervor. Khomeini’s denunciation of Āyandigān as “depraved” and the radio’s repeated attacks as “counterrevolutionary” reflected a new orthodoxy. The paper’s own plea, published on May 12, 1979, read:

“It is impossible to continue until the…”

The truncated quote, preserved in the JSTOR Daily article, captures the paper’s desperate attempt to argue for a free press. Many journalists and intellectuals at the time believed the revolution would usher in a democratic era, with a vibrant press as its cornerstone. The reality, as the Āyandigān incident showed, was more complex. The prevailing mood among revolutionaries was one of vigilance against counterrevolutionary elements, which often included independent voices.

Historical Snapshot

Contemporary Newspaper Coverage

Newspapers were the primary source of information for Iranians during the revolution. The Nashriyah collection at the University of Manchester preserves many of these dailies, including Āyandigān, Kayhan, and Ettela’at. Coverage ranged from revolutionary slogans to detailed reports on strikes and protests. The tone was often passionate, reflecting the high stakes. On May 12, 1979, Āyandigān published its famous plea, which was both a news story and an editorial. The paper’s absence from newsstands that day was itself a story, as readers noticed and spread word.

The JSTOR Daily article notes that the University of Manchester’s digital archive allows researchers to see how journalists, satirists, and tabloids documented revolutionary Iran in real time. The collection includes covers and pages that are in the public domain, offering a vivid window into the era. For example, the February 1979 issues captured the immediate aftermath of the Shah’s fall, with headlines celebrating the revolution and calling for unity.

“The newspapers and periodicals from this period provide a unique insight into the causes and consequences of the Iranian Revolution of 1978-79, a phenomenon which has yet to be fully explained.” — University of Manchester Library

What People Knew at the Time

What People Feared

In the months after the revolution, many Iranians feared a counterrevolution—either from royalists or from foreign powers. The press was a battleground for these fears. The state’s labeling of Āyandigān as “counterrevolutionary” played on these anxieties, suggesting that any criticism of the new government was tantamount to supporting the old regime. Journalists feared for their safety and their livelihoods. The radio’s repeated attacks created a climate of intimidation. Some feared that the revolution would be hijacked by extremists, while others worried that the new government would become as repressive as the Shah’s. These fears were not unfounded, as the subsequent suppression of the press demonstrated.

What People Expected Would Happen Next

Many contemporaries expected the revolution to lead to a democratic republic with a free press. The Āyandigān plea reflected this hope, arguing that press freedom was a “tenet of the Iranian Revolution.” Others expected a period of chaos and power struggles. The rapid consolidation of power by Khomeini and his allies surprised many. Some predicted that the new government would eventually allow a pluralistic press, but the opposite occurred. By the end of 1979, most independent newspapers had been shut down or taken over by the state. The expectations of a free press were dashed, and the revolution’s trajectory became a subject of intense debate.

How Historians See It Today

Modern historians view the Iranian Revolution as a watershed event that reshaped the Middle East. They emphasize the role of oil revenues, urbanization, and the Shah’s authoritarianism as root causes. The press, once seen as a passive observer, is now recognized as an active participant in the revolution. The Nashriyah collection has enabled scholars to study how newspapers shaped public opinion and documented events as they happened. Historians also note that the revolution’s outcome—an Islamic republic—was not inevitable; contemporaries had many different visions for the future. The suppression of the press is now seen as a key indicator of the regime’s authoritarian turn. The JSTOR Daily article highlights how the digital archive allows for a nuanced understanding of the revolution’s media landscape, including the role of satirists and tabloids.

The newspapers of 1979 offer an invaluable record of a society in flux. They capture the euphoria of revolution, the fear of counterrevolution, and the hope for a free press. The story of Āyandigān is a reminder that the fight for press freedom is often one of the first casualties of political change. Yet the survival of these newspapers in archives like Nashriyah ensures that the voices of that era are not forgotten. They remain a testament to the power of the press to shape history—and to the fragility of that power.