Press Council in Turkey

I have followed, as an ethical guideline, a text issued -- through internal consensus -- by the Turkish Journalists' Association. Its guidelines, titled “Communiqué of Rights and Responsibilities” -- is still progressive and comprehensive enough even though it was issued more than a decade ago. It was, then, signed by more than 4,000 journalists.

It was, certainly, not enough to declare commitment by signing. The text was aimed at being engaged in good practices, as a reference whenever dilemmas emerged, as a “beacon of morality.” No honest journalist, I suppose, would claim, that in the current environment, the engagement is visible, let alone systematic. Ethics in the Turkish press have never been a priority.

This was the core of my address to the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO), a worldwide network of public editors, reader representatives, listening post editors and viewer ombudsmen. A network of committed, wise, experienced journalists whose job is to pay honest attention to what the specific public thinks of the news outlet they are appointed to. When we, ombudsmen from around 10 countries gathered in Washington DC last week, as guests of the Washington Post, NPR and PBS, my focus was on the difficulties of media self-regulation; not only the expectations on awareness of the need to turn into transparent and accountable organizations, but also, to take it beyond awareness, into practice.

I argued that in the emerging democracies, demands on a free and independent press were much higher than on others; and also that to complete the journey into a fully-fledged democracy, it was essential to have a trustworthy, fair, rigorous, non-partisan press which would have to tolerate reader/viewer critique, by allowing democratic practices into it.

My arguments were more or less seconded by Miklos Haraszti, OSCE representative on freedom of the media, based in Vienna. He gave a number of examples from “Post-Soviet” countries, outlining political pressure, as well as economic pressure by the increasingly non-tolerant regimes. The free press was seen as a threatening activity to all the autocratic regimes, and therefore seen as a luxury, fancy activity that had to be fought against. What is worse, a lack of memory about ethics and flawed practices gave pretexts to those regimes to regulate the press by laws and politically motivated external structures, Haraszti reminded us.

In a brochure he distributed, Haraszti concludes that the press in transitional democracies must be given freedom to conduct its profession, and only by being given that freedom, other models such as press councils might work. He saw many dangers, here and there, that press councils can only be set up by the regimes' initiative, either as “window dressing” or to curb critical journalistic practices.

It was a passing description, with no specific mention, of how the Turkish Press Council functions, how it has been perceived or how inefficient it has become. When I read yesterday's feature in Today's Zaman, on my way back from the annual ONO congress in the US, a story titled “Journalists rebuke Turkish Press Council for being incompetent and anti-democratic,” I found myself nodding bitterly, agreeing with the views conveyed by respected, truly independent colleagues.

The Press Council has been led by Oktay Ekşi since its foundation in 1988. He was constantly re-elected, endorsing only the impression that it was a “one man act” rather than a sincere attempt to promote journalism and ethics.

It is, today, completely toothless, having emptied all reputation out of its meaning.

As reported by Today's Zaman, “In 2005, several newspapers, including Akşam, Yeni Şafak and Sabah, parted ways with the Press Council and announced that they no longer recognize the institution when its chairman, Ekşi, took Vuslat Doğan Sabancı, a Hürriyet board member and executive director, although she was not invited, to a meeting with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to discuss the new Turkish Penal Code (TCK). Back then, the disgruntled newspapers said it was inappropriate for a media boss to participate in such a meeting as if she is the representative of the entire media, arguing that the Press Council was acting as the representative of the Doğan Yayın Holding.”

It is a well-known secret, as Ragıp Duran pointed out, that the military junta of 1980 in Turkey was behind the formation of the Press Council -- as part of the practices in the country to enhance corporatism -- to put a leash on the press.