Strain means pressure from various circles of political and administrational power; identity crisis is the growing struggle for the “real role” of the profession of journalism and how to leave behind its decades-long corrupt and dependent mode of conduct.Clearly noticing that the American focus of the problem was, simplistically, unfairly on the “tax evasion” case against Turkey's dominant media group, (as if its course would define a choice between a free and “unfree” media), I gave this summary to people following the developments and to my concerned colleagues.
Media freedom is still fragile in Turkey. Both the conduct of “free journalism” and editorial independence is under threat and face daily challenges. If we disregard the apparent threat of the global economic crisis, which also affected Turkey's powerful, dynamic and diverse media, particularly the newspapers, the areas in which the freedom faces severe challenges are two:
First, political pressure and legal obstacles.
Second, economic actors -- particularly, the media proprietors.
First, the legislation. Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) is still being enforced. People are put on trial in large numbers. The argument of the authorities after last year's amendment is that sentences of imprisonment have decreased. It is not a convincing argument at all: The legal procedures per se help create an atmosphere of fear here and lead to self-censorship. Furthermore, lawyers for journalist unions claim that there are around 20 articles in various laws that limit journalistic work.
The Internet Law is one of them. Though it justifiably deals with child pornography and illegal gambling, its part on “vilifying the memory of Atatürk” and the blurred method of implementation by the often Internet-ignorant judiciary have led to the banning of hundreds of Web sites and blogs. This is an acute matter which, when mentioned, causes the government to look away. Moreover, political, administrative and local authorities, loyal to their “society on a leash” tradition, are still very keen on keeping the media under intense pressure. Both the government and the powerful military apply punitive measures to the press by addressing it in threatening language – in particular by the prime minister and the chief of general staff – or by using accreditation as a tool for banning access to coverage.
Then you have the famous “tax evasion case” against Turkey's dominant media group, Doğan. I argued in Washington that it should be seen more in the context of the “economic actors' area” that poses challenges to media freedom because it has to be clearly understood that the “cronyism” between political-bureaucratic power circles and economic actors makes the latter a serious factor and a threat to media freedom.
Advertisers – both the state and the private sector – stand as a constant, serious element before a media that strives for diversity and free opinion. Media outlets seen as “too critical” or “too intrusive to sensitivities” are “punished” by a lack of advertisements.
But the most powerful threat – together with the legislation – is the media proprietors. Today, as yesterday, they stand for censorship, self-censorship and restraint within Turkish media. For over two decades the media proprietor, regarding its media outlet(s) as a tool for political blackmail, tried successfully to use relations with governments and the bureaucracy for its self-interest. It meant “defining the content,” turning “editorial independency” into a word for window dressing. It meant a compass whose North changes according to the interests of conglomerates. It also meant that it is impossible for those media outlets to cover their owners and shareholders; it is a “no go” area.
Doğan's claims that “media freedom” is in danger must be, therefore, also seen in this context. Its “favors” were cut off by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), and the problem of that media group is utterly exaggerated, presented as the problem of the Turkish media in general. (I recommend that all foreign observers read or ask for a summary of a book titled “Kovulduk Ey Halkım” by Emin Çölaşan, a columnist dismissed from Hurriyet, a Doğan outlet. Without that insight, no judgment of the AK Party-Doğan controversy can be balanced.) The correct approach is this: As with its predecessors, the AK Party is keen on consolidating its “pro-government” media. This pattern, seen together with the biased approach of Doğan, makes more than one wrong. If the AK Party wants a free, independent media here, it should instead: a) ban media owners from entering public tenders; b) ban or severely limit cross-ownership; c) increase the share limits of foreign investors; and d) pass the trade union law. Does the fact that the AK Party is silent on these matters and that no “commentator” from the Doğan group mentions them not come as a surprise to you at all?
This was what I said in Washington on media freedom in Turkey.
