Dadge writes:
"First, he (Baydar) concludes that the International Press Institute, a leading organization that promotes media freedom through dialogue and advocacy, is 'an extended arm' of the Doğan company. This is simply not the case. IPI's mandate, as approved by our board and members, is to support the press anywhere there is evidence of injustice or concern about fairness. As both your columnists indicate, there has been a rising tempo of verbal attacks against Turkish media in recent months. A record tax fine against a news organization coming at this time raises concerns about fairness and potential government meddling to undermine independent media."
"My second concern is Mr. Baydar's portrayal of IPI as an organization 'in constant financial trouble.' Had he been prepared to do a little more digging and contacted the organization, Mr. Baydar would have found that independent financial audits show IPI to be in sound financial health. Indeed, far from being in trouble, IPI is growing, adding new advocacy campaigns and strengthening its press freedom activities."
"Your columnists raise welcome points about the Turkish government's treatment of the media. But your readers should understand that IPI is a vigorous and independent organization that is prepared to defend the journalists and news organizations so they can do their jobs without fear of reprisal."
My response to Mr Dadge can be summarized in various points:
IPI has been suffering a credibility problem with large segments of Turkish journalism. This should explain why the "non-DMG media" either ignored the latest statement of IPI or, at best, barely mentioned it. It cannot be explained away simply by the polarity within Turkish media. It is known that by what appears to be a result of misjudgment, IPI neglected the notion of neutrality to various news outlets here, and through its ever closer relations with DMG (by appointing earlier its publisher/employer as a board member, etc.), it practically ignored paying attention to the situation of other media and alienated most of my colleagues by not monitoring the main threat, equally constant and present, to press freedom in Turkey as elsewhere: suppression of media proprietors within their news outlets.
It has been perhaps understandable that almost none of the columnists of DMG dared raise their voices when opinion writers in the past years were fired with no explanation at all by the DMG proprietor, and no protest of any kind was heard about this practice -- whose political nature was obvious -- from IPI. Of course, if IPI's mandate is "to support the press anywhere there is evidence of injustice or concern about fairness," then…
When the press' freedom was breached this way, most of my colleagues noted the "close relations" between the IPI board and DMG, whereby the former was hosted at elegant dinners in İstanbul now and then, while those DMG regarded as "marginal" or "rival" were excluded. IPI never issued any concern or protest on censorship within DMG (as told later in detail in Emin Çölaşan's book), and punishment of columnists and editors by way of firing them.
Regarding IPI's "financial trouble": I have my information from four separate sources, two of whom are from DMG itself. Writing my article with a press deadline, I checked IPI's Web site but did not find any display of transparency on this issue. If Mr. Dadge is to provide information, I welcome it.
Now, if Dadge is eager about IPI being "a vigorous and independent organization that is prepared to defend the journalists and news organizations so they can do their jobs without fear of reprisal," I have some humble recommendations for IPI to consider and implement without delay:
1) Accept that the "threat to press freedom" here is multifold. Make clear that "power" is not limited to the government. Power in Turkey is shared by government, the armed forces, the bureaucracy and media owners. React, to be fair, whenever any of them take steps to create fear and resort to reprisal.
2) Beware of an equal distance between all news outlets. Repair your image.
3) Monitor all illegitimate contacts and "deals," as reported by the "rival" press, between media groups and Ankara power spots. Make them public and condemn them whenever necessary since they pose athreat to press freedom.
4) The greatest problem of the Turkish media is the concentration of media ownership coupled with the allowed economic activities of owners outside media. DMG's case is unique in Europe. Call on the Turkish government loudly and repeatedly to ban cross-ownership, introduce measures to counteract ownership concentration in the media including prohibition of participation in public tenders for media owners. Demand vigorously that DMG -- and others -- exit "non-media" sectors. This is the way to consolidate a free and independent, diverse press. This is the path to resolve the most painful source of (self)censorship, which has been systematically imposed by the proprietors themselves.
Otherwise, you will continue to swim in shallow waters and only a few -- if any -- will pay attention.
