Why This Propaganda Demands Scrutiny
Across authoritarian contexts, propaganda functions as a powerful tool to manufacture consent, confuse public opinion, and obscure state abuses. In Azerbaijan’s “Meydan TV case,” independent journalist Ulviyya Ali (Guliyeva) has become the target of precisely such a smear campaign. A façade of “criminal investigation” has been constructed around fabricated evidence and outright lies—while the reality of her torture, rape threats, and ongoing suffering remains hidden behind official talking points.
For the international human rights community, examining this propaganda line by line is crucial. It helps reveal how language is weaponized to legitimize repression, how manufactured “evidence” is used to criminalize independent journalism, and why silent acquiescence allows authoritarian governments to thrive. In the following exposé, we will:
- Highlight Ulviyya Ali’s firsthand testimony of torture and rape threats by Azerbaijani police.
- Deconstruct the mechanics and language of the state-sponsored smear.
- Demonstrate, through direct quotes from Ali’s prison letters, how propaganda deliberately distorts facts.
- Explain why it matters that we refuse to stay silent—and what is achieved by exposing each twist of this fabricated narrative.
I. “I Want Everyone to Know That Within 24 Hours I Was Twice Threatened with Rape by the Azerbaijani Police!”
The Torture They Tried to Erase
Ulvịyya Ali’s firsthand account from Baku Investigation Detention Center No. 1 offers a searing window into the violence inflicted upon her immediately after arrest. On the night of May 6, 2025, she was forcibly dragged from her home and subjected to brutal interrogation designed to break her will.
“I want everyone to know that within 24 hours I was twice threatened with rape by the Azerbaijani police!”
Ali continues, describing exactly how the officers beat and humiliated her:
“He slammed his hand on the water bottle on the table, which punctured it. Water spilled all over me and the table…
Seeing I was not giving the passwords, the ‘housing department worker’ who was enjoying his cigarette stood up. Two officers stood on either side of me and started pulling and tearing my hair in different directions. The thin officer said, ‘Bring the stun gun.’ When I still refused, the thin officer said, ‘I will violate your womanhood.’ The words made my heart stop.”
These passages leave no room for doubt: this was not a minor scuffle or an “unverified” allegation—Ali describes systematic, targeted torture. She notes that, despite knowing she had a microadenoma brain tumor (diagnosed in 2017), her captors continued to strike her head and refused to authorize any medical exam.
“Not a single day has passed without headaches, nausea, dizziness, and blackouts,” she warns.
“Since the assault on May 7, not a single day has passed without headaches, nausea, dizziness, and blackouts. I take 2–3 painkillers daily, but that’s not enough for effective treatment. I suspect more serious damage, because in addition to nausea, I’ve vomited at different times and had nosebleeds on two occasions.”
Yet the official propaganda report—with its milquetoast description (“she may have been somewhat roughed up during arrest”)—completely buries these details. By erasing clear evidence of torture, the state narrative tries to replace a story of brutal repression with one of routine criminal procedure. This stark contrast reveals how, in regimes where independent journalism is punishable, torture is sanitized through euphemism and omission.
II. The “Planting Money” Operation: Manufacturing a Criminal Narrative
How Evidence Was Fabricated Before Our Eyes
In early May 2025, Ali’s home was ransacked by at least seven policemen, two witnesses, and the investigator—yet no illicit cash was found during the initial sweep. Only after Ali mocked them—“Aren’t you planting money in the house?”—did an officer theatrically “discover” €6,700 atop a wardrobe in a bag she hadn’t opened since January.
“From a bag I hadn’t opened or looked at since January 4 of this year, they took money wrapped with a rubber band—roughly the thickness of Chekhov’s ‘Ward No. 6.’ They held out the money to me, asking, ‘Whose is this?’ I did not touch the money and laughed loudly, saying, ‘You know better; you put it here.’”
This intentional staging was recorded in Ali’s own hand in the search protocol:
“In the protocol, I noted that the search was conducted without my lawyer; police frequently entered and exited the apartment when the door should have been locked; and the investigator counted the money without gloves. I saw a policeman frequently coming in and giving a nod to the investigator from the other side of the room. Suddenly, someone said, ‘We haven’t checked the top of the wardrobe in the bedroom.’… The policeman who planted the money said, ‘See, I planted it.’ I applauded and said, ‘I liked your performance.’”
Despite this admission, the propaganda narrative presents the €6,700 as incontrovertible proof of “foreign-funded subversion.” By portraying the money as legitimately “found,” the smear attempts to frame Ali as part of a criminal ring. This classic tactic—manufacturing evidence out of thin air—serves two functions: (1) to justify her detention under the false charge of “smuggling by prior collusion,” and (2) to discredit her continued work as a journalist (both for Voice of America and on Facebook).
III. Mechanics of the Smear: Language, Omissions, and Guilt by Association
1. Guilt by Association with Meydan TV
The propaganda report repeatedly claims that Ali worked under the pseudonym “Olivia” for Meydan TV, implying she “managed” or “directed” the outlet from abroad. Yet Ali’s own letters insist on the contrary:
“They themselves know well that I have no cooperation with Meydan TV, but since they had to fabricate ‘evidence’ out of nothing, they used violence to get my passwords.”
And, from Part 1 of her letter:
“I read the warrant and smiled again. It is known that since 2019 I have cooperated with Voice of America, not Meydan TV. If they had framed 10 people in this case, I was framed twice as hard as the 11th person… If I were a Meydan TV employee, I would say it proudly, not deny it!”
By weaponizing her acquaintances with detained Meydan TV journalists (Ramin Deko, Aynur Ganbarova, Aysel Umudova, and others), the state umbrellas her under a single “criminal network.” In reality, Ali’s only formal employer since 2019 was Voice of America, which had ceased operations in Azerbaijan by March 2025, leaving her with zero official salary. Her subsequent court reports were purely voluntary.
Why This Matters: Guilt by association—a cornerstone of propaganda—“poisons the well” by insinuating sinister intent where none exists. Once a journalist is labeled an “agent” of a “foreign-funded extremist network,” objective examination of her work or evidence becomes moot in the eyes of state-controlled media.
2. Decontextualizing International Engagement
The propaganda report casts suspicion on Ali’s trips abroad (e.g., her participation in Crimea in September 2018, funded by the Human Rights House Foundation and People in Need; her attendance at the 2019 U.S. State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program). Instead of acknowledging these as legitimate journalistic or human rights–related missions, the state narrative frames them as proof of subversion.
Propaganda phrasing (paraphrased): “She traveled to Crimea under the pretext of human rights, but in fact was colluding with foreign powers to undermine the state.”
Reality (Ali’s letter): “In September 2018, I, with support from Human Rights House Foundation and People in Need, traveled to Crimea with Belarusian and Ukrainian defenders to prepare the ‘Crimea: Breaking The Wall of Silence’ report.”
By omitting context—the purpose, sponsoring NGOs, and actual content of these missions—the smear decontextualizes normal journalistic practice into a conspiracy. This tactic not only slanders Ali but also warns other reporters: “Any travel to international programs can be retroactively recast as a crime.”
3. Euphemisms and Minimization: Denying the Torture
Note how the propaganda document refers to Ali’s allegations of beating and rape threats as “unverified rumors” or “exaggerations,” while contrarily depicting her as a dishonest provocateur. In a purely journalistic-investigative setting, the standard response to such grave accusations would be to order an independent medical and forensic exam. Instead, the state report does exactly the opposite:
- It downplays Ali’s description of “forced hair-pulling” and “threats to rape her” as if minimal force were used.
- It fails to mention “I want everyone to know that within 24 hours I was twice threatened with rape by the Azerbaijani police!”—even though Ali explicitly recounts each threat.
- It uses passive voice (“she may have been somewhat roughed up”) to shift culpability from individual policemen to a nebulous “circumstance,” rather than naming names and detailing actions.
“Investigator Alibala Hajiyev told my lawyer and me that he did not see any violence,” she notes, anticipating his official denial. By placing the onus on a single corrupt official to deny what dozens of witnesses and medical records confirm, the propaganda attempts to freeze the narrative at “no evidence of torture.”
In reality, refusing any forensic examination, ignoring fresh hemorrhages or blunt-force trauma, and dismissing her complaint as “unsubstantiated” are all red flags of an orchestrated cover-up. The language of denial is deliberately crafted to muddy the waters, erode doubt, and weaken international calls for accountability.
IV. “Journalism Is Not a Crime”—Analyzing Direct Quotes to Shatter the Smear
1. “I Was Arrested Because of My Professional Activity”
At her appeal hearing on May 16, Ali insisted:
“I was arrested because of my professional activity. I have no professional relationship with Meydan TV.”
She added—unheard by the state’s official spin—
“To limit my journalistic activity, they’re trying to tie me to a criminal case involving a media outlet I have no business affiliation with.”
Yet the propaganda report laces its headlines with insinuations of illicit financing—ignoring her clarifications that the €6,700 was planted and that she never sought compensation for her court reporting on Facebook. By repeating only half the truth—that she “once worked for Voice of America”—the state narrative conceals the timeline and reality of her unemployment since VOA’s departure. This selective presentation is textbook propaganda: twist a kernel of fact into “proof” of malicious intent, then bury any conflicting testimony.
2. “Journalism Is Not a Crime!”
Towards the end of Part 1 of her letter, Ali punctuates her entire testimony with this resolute declaration:
“Journalism is not a crime!”
This simple sentence encapsulates her entire stance—and directly challenges the state narrative that recasts her as a “criminal suspect.” In omitting these words, the propaganda report not only strips her of agency but also robs readers of understanding her broader purpose: bearing witness. True journalism, she makes clear, is about preserving memory and resisting erasure, even behind bars. The propaganda counters this essential truth by depicting her as a criminal, not a conscience-driven journalist.
3. “Bella Ciao”—A Personal Anthem of Resistance
When guards played a video at her feet featuring the Italian partisan anthem “Bella Ciao,” Ali writes:
“Suddenly, the song ‘Bella Ciao’ started playing from one of the videos. I smiled; though tired, my favorite song loaded me with dopamine and serotonin.”
She goes on to hum the lyrics:
“O partigiano, portami via / O bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao ciao / O partigiano, portami via / Che mi sento di morir.”
Why highlight this seemingly small detail? Because it reveals how, even in captivity, she transforms state oppression into an act of resistance. The state’s omission of this moment in their propaganda shows they fear such symbols of solidarity—when “Bella Ciao” resonates beyond prison walls, it reminds international watchers that detention doesn’t break the spirit. Yet the propaganda’s silence on such personal, humanizing details demonstrates its aim: to dehumanize Ali, reduce her to “evidence of foreign subversion,” and erase anything that might spark solidarity.
V. The Potency of Propaganda: What It Achieves and Why We Must Not Be Silent
1. Propaganda’s Objectives in Smear Campaigns
By analyzing the state report line by line, we see how propaganda works to:
- Criminalize Independent Journalism
– Transform principled court reporting and social media posts into “smuggling” or “espionage,” thus justifying arbitrary detention. - Obfuscate Evidence of Torture
– Erase or minimize accounts of sexual threats, physical violence, and denial of medical care, presenting detainees as liars or troublemakers. - Sow Public Confusion
– Offer a half-truth that looks plausible on the surface (“Yes, she worked for Voice of America”) while hiding the full context of voluntary work and enforced unemployment. - Isolate the Victim
– By convincing the general population that Ali is a “Meydan TV agent” or “Western-backed agitator,” the state discourages local solidarity; neighbors, family, and even some lawyers may fear reprisals.
2. Why We Must Not Stay Silent
a) Complicity Through Silence
When the international community fails to dissect propaganda tactics, it risks allowing false narratives to stand. Silence normalizes the lie that journalists like Ali “deserve” arrest, even torture, because they are labeled “criminals.”
b) Protecting the Integrity of Human Rights Work
Torture, rape threats, and denial of medical care are egregious violations of international law (UN Convention Against Torture, Article 2 of the ICCPR). By exposing the propaganda, we re-center the conversation on duty-bearers’ obligations: states must investigate torture, hold perpetrators accountable, and ensure freedom of expression—none of which happens when smears substitute for truth.
c) Upholding Memory and History
If propaganda succeeds in rewriting the narrative, future generations will see only the “official story,” never the voice of a journalist who refused to be silent. Ulviyya Ali’s letters—each mention of her cats, “Bella Ciao,” and migraines—are fragments of a living history that must not be erased.
VI. Unanswered Questions—Explaining Why Propaganda Works and How to Counter It
- Why is it important to subject this propaganda report to a close reading?
Because propaganda rarely falls flat. It is carefully crafted to contain a minimal kernel of truth—Ali did work for Voice of America—and to build around it a narrative of criminality. By identifying each distortion (the “planting” of €6,700, the denial of rape threats, the false “Olivia” pseudonym), we inoculate ourselves and others against the confusion the state desires. - What does propaganda achieve with such reports?
- Legitimization of repression: When the public “knows” a journalist is “secretly working for foreign interests,” they are less inclined to protest her arrest.
- Institutional cover: Judges, prosecutors, and police officials can believe they are “doing their duty,” because they see a state-sanctioned narrative as truth.
- Chilling effect: Other reporters hesitate to speak out if they fear being branded “agents” or “traitors.”
- Why is it better not to keep silent about false accusations, torture, and threats?
- Preventing impunity: Silence equates to consent. If international observers do not call out torture, there is no external pressure on Azerbaijani authorities to stop or investigate.
- Protecting future journalists: Each time the international community raises its voice—through reports, petitions, diplomatic pressure—we create a small measure of protection for colleagues inside the country.
- Reclaiming truth: At stake is not only Ulviyya Ali’s safety, but also the principle that facts—verified, documented, and publicly available—must prevail over state lies.
VII. Conclusion: Keep the Flame of Truth Alive
Propaganda thrives in the dark. By refusing to let the Azerbaijani state’s smear campaign go unchallenged, we send a clear message: torture and false imprisonment cannot be sanitized by official press releases. Ulviyya Ali’s letters—filled with vivid detail about forced hair-pulling, threats to rape, and her humming “Bella Ciao”—must not be reduced to a footnote. Her words echo the universal truth that:
“Journalism is not a crime!”
To the international human rights community, this means one straightforward obligation: do not look the other way. Publish every account of torture, demand an independent investigation, and provide redress. Ensure Ali’s voice—her recollection of how “the thin officer said, ‘I will violate your womanhood,’” and how “not a single day has passed without headaches, nausea, dizziness, and blackouts”—is louder than any state-sanctioned lie.
Whether you are a journalist, an NGO researcher, a UN rapporteur, or an engaged citizen, take these steps:
- Distribute Ali’s full letters to policymakers, highlighting the direct quotes.
- File formal inquiries with Azerbaijani authorities under OPCAT and the UNCAT framework about her treatment and detention conditions.
- Lobby international bodies (OSCE, European Parliament, UN Human Rights Council) to monitor and condemn torture tactics.
- Amplify solidarity—from social media campaigns to letter-writing drives—ensuring the Azerbaijani government knows the world is watching.
In sum, by scrutinizing every line of the state’s propaganda, we do more than protect one journalist: we defend the right of all journalists to report freely, without fear of violence or false criminal charges. And in that defense, we keep alive the flame of truth for the next generation.