There are, of course, several reasons for this, and I will try to elaborate on them. But the first thing that strikes me is that only a few people said and wrote that the issue was a matter of freedom of the press. On the contrary there is almost a consensus that media owners in Turkey have always pressed not for freedom of the press but for their economic gains, even if by unethical and even illegal means. Doğan Media Group is seen as a towering example by many in this regard.When looking at media-state relations in Turkey, one should always bear in mind that only a few media companies generate profits, but their owners have continued to stick with them for decades. On the surface, there is no economic logic behind this attitude. But when we take into account that almost all these media owners have several other business enterprises such as banks, factories, petroleum companies and so on, the economic politics of having a media outlet or conglomerate in countries such as Turkey become less blurred and more fathomable. As the owner of Doğan Media Group, Aydın Doğan, said several times, only one of his many dailies -- Hurriyet -- generates profit and that his other companies subsidize his non-profit-generating media outlets. If you buy into this, he explains his endeavors as being motivated by his love of media. But when it comes to his rivals, he has some other explanations. He reportedly said in interviews that one of his rivals, Mehmet Emin Karamehmet, bought media companies even though they were (and still are) not profitable institutions to protect his other business interests. Mr. Doğan expects us to buy the argument that his opponents keep loser media outlets for pressuring the government for favorable treatment, whilst Mr. Doğan does it for the love of media and freedom of the press. It is difficult to know the truth, but we need to highlight that before buying the Milliyet daily in 1980, Mr. Doğan was not even a middle-sized businessman. However, today he is probably the richest person in Turkey.
When similarly fined a few months ago, instead of taking the Finance Ministry to the administrative courts, which are not known for their love of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government (!), they opted for a compromise and paid a lesser fine. This time they similarly applied for a settlement. Furthermore, many objective experts analyzing the case suggest that the fine is legal and that the Doğan Group was caught red-handed. But what Doğan supporters and a few impartial commentators argue is that Doğan may have erred, but several other tycoons also manipulate the tax laws and play with the taxman, so it is wrong to target only the Doğan group.
Welcome to Turkey and its legally pluralist environment. Laws are applied to little people like myself, and taxes are taken from our salaries every month without letting us see or touch the money, but the fat cats expect us and the government to sympathize with their tax evasion tactics. What all of us should be defending is that the government has to chase every single fat cat and force him or her to pay his or her taxes properly. A proper press would be doing its job only if it is monitoring the government and to what extent it fairly and transparently regulates the tax affairs of big companies, including and primarily its supporters. Yet, at the moment, instead of asking for this, Doğan supporters ask why Doğan is targeted while the others keep evading their taxes. Many of these people would argue that they are progressive and enlightened people, but they must know that they are light years behind the Prophet of Islam who firmly said even if the thief is my daughter Fatima, I would still penalize her.
Financial affairs of big businessman, their unethical dealings with the state, their favorable treatment with regards to government tenders and their widely known tax evasion issues are some of the major reasons why many of our big businessmen are not enthusiastic about the EU accession process, transparency and democratization and why they would love to keep their oligarchy that they run with their civil-servant, military-general and high-ranking judicial partners.
