On the other hand, there are serious concerns that the AK Party has been taking action to harm the liberal environment, as was recently evidenced by the tax fine imposed upon the Doğan Group. This particularly confuses the supporters of reform within secular circles. The whole situation becomes even more complicated considering that it is the CHP and the state tradition that hamper the reform process and that the Hürriyet daily, part of the Doğan Group, plays a major role in sustaining and polishing the policy pursued by that party. Hürriyet and the Doğan Group's approach and ideological orientation are not a secret. We are talking about a huge holding that has acquired influential positions and monopolies in a number of fields. This is a journalistic style that introduces policies against the interests of the workers, works hard to make sure that reporters critical of the statist approach lose their jobs and takes a hostile approach toward other media groups. The major tool that Hürriyet uses in the media competition is acting as an informant for the Finance Ministry on the flaws and wrongdoings of its opponents. Its usual policies and actions include the publication of false reports alleging that its opponents are involved in illegal activities and filing complaints in this regard with state institutions.
In other words, it is not possible to argue that the ethical record of the Doğan Group looks very good. But the actual problem with Hürriyet's journalism is its content. The paper is pursuing a policy that supports coups, publishes false reports, provokes social reactions and promotes racism and nationalistic sentiments at every opportunity. For instance, they have censored findings with respect to the Ergenekon network; they implied that the findings and evidence were not accurate. In the aftermath of 1997, they strongly favored the military coup and aligned with the army. The false accusations prepared by the army seeking to undermine the image of some journalists and writers were deliberately headlined; they strongly supported the expulsion of liberal journalists from their jobs.
In short, we are all aware of the “principles” of the Hürriyet daily and the Doğan Group. For this reason, it is not possible to seriously consider the allegations indicating that the fine will have a deteriorating influence on democracy and freedom. But this does not suffice to approve the fine. The first question in response to such a huge fine should be, “Is the fine fair?” -- a question that has never been asked by the supporters of the Doğan Group. This question is legitimate because it is a technical assessment based on laws and legislation and used in the calculation of the fine. If this fine was assessed based on legal and legitimate instruments, then why is there this objection? Besides, if the amount of the fine is so huge, is it not obvious that the previous interests were also huge? If the fine is unfair, what needs to be done is to prove its illegality; the Turkish financial legislators recognize the right to remedy unfair treatment.
If you take a look at the objections by those who categorically dislike the AK Party's rule, this fine is a deliberate punishment. In other words, would they still have objected if the amount of fine had been smaller? Obviously, the reason for the imposition of this fine is related to the size and magnitude of the abuse and wrong action; the figure is based on the assessment of the magnitude and gravity of tax evasion. On the other hand, those who are uncomfortable with the amount of the fine adopt a legal approach based on a pragmatic consideration. This is not surprising for those who are familiar with the negotiation with the state. But if you view finance laws as a control framework whose rules have already been set up, you should admit that negotiation on the figures is unethical. And finally, another criticism says that such a fine has never been imposed upon "others." Well, how could they be so sure that the same crime has been committed by others? Besides, is that not the very reason why journalism exists? If there are similar abuses and violations, their perpetrators should be identified, and they should be effectively prosecuted.
In conclusion, there is an offense and a fine imposed for the commission of this offense. Those who make reference to justice and democracy based on the magnitude of the fine should first try to acknowledge the magnitude and gravity of the crime. You do not have to like the AK Party and its policies, but this should not necessarily lead you to lose your ethical principles. Those who try to present this fine as an ideological punishment should appreciate that they are camouflaging the offense committed.
