The most recent phase of the row was triggered in mid-February, when tax authorities levied a fine of close to $500 million for tax evasion on the Doğan Media Group (DMG). The DMG declared the fine illegal and an "injustice of historic proportions." Main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal commented that the tax fine constituted "a problem concerning the political regime" and was aimed at "silencing and disabling the opposition." Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, Doğan denied the charges of tax dodging and said: "The basis for all this is political … Mr. Erdoğan came to power using democracy. He is a product of democracy, but he can accept democracy only for himself. He cannot accept side components of democracy, such as free media." He accused Erdoğan of seeking to muzzle criticism and create a "silent Turkey." Doğan said his relations with the Erdoğan government first "went haywire" when early last year the media outlets he owned reported on the business dealings of the prime minister's son and dug into the criminal case of a Turkish charity in Germany accused of funneling funds to Erdoğan's Justice and Development Party (AKP). Doğan said that Erdoğan "could not put up with this and wanted to silence us" by calling on his supporters to boycott Doğan's newspapers.
I, like many others, do suspect that the tax fine may be a response by tax authorities, which are not independent but controlled by the government, to the increasingly stark anti-AKP opposition voiced by DMG outlets. The fine does indeed appear like a continuation of calls by Erdoğan for the boycott of DMG newspapers, accusing them of publishing fabricated news stories about him and his party.
In making sense of the row between Erdoğan and Doğan, there are, however, also other factors that have to be considered. First of all, the DMG will obviously contest the tax evasion charges in court. The judicial process should reveal whether the tax fine is in line with the rules or "political." Media companies, too, are subject to tax inspection, and fining media companies cannot be said to constitute a breach of press freedom. That a company has paid high taxes in the past, surely, is no evidence against current wrongdoing.
The DMG is in no way free of suspicions of using its media power in pursuing a "carrot and stick" policy toward governments. Doğan's argument that the tax fine is intended to "silence Turkey" is no more convincing than Erdoğan's claim that the DMG's fierce opposition is due to the fact that the government has denied Doğan the favors he has sought.
The DGM, which nowadays claims to be the champion of democracy and press freedom, is well known for pursuing, especially in its news coverage and in the writings of most of its commentators, a policy of providing active support to nearly every intervention by the military or the judiciary against the democratic process in recent years. It applauded the military's e-memorandum against the election of Abdullah Gül to the presidency. It hailed the Constitutional Court's decision, in violation of the Constitution, to halt the election in Parliament. It raised hell against constitutional amendments adopted by four-fifths of Parliament to lift the headscarf ban for university students, which certainly was a move to lift an unacceptable restriction on the freedom of conscience. It supported the closure case against the AKP at the Constitutional Court. And it is trying its best to portray the investigation and trial against the Ergenekon criminal network, accused of plotting to overthrow the government, as fabrications to silence the opposition.
The pathetic sight of most opinion writers in the DMG competing to prove themselves their employer's best defender against tax authorities is just a sign of the fact that perhaps the greatest threat to press freedom in Turkey is excessively powerful media barons with interests in sectors other than the media.
If, however, Prime Minister Erdoğan truly wants to stop the media barons from using their media power to squeeze favors from governments, he is strongly advised to take measures to curb the excessive ownership concentration in the media by introducing a cross-ownership ban and prohibiting media companies from participating in public tenders. To make calls, instead, for newspaper boycotts, and to help pro-government businessmen take control of the media is surely no way of improving the quality of either the press or democracy in Turkey. It also raises the question of whether the government is truly interested in a free and independent press.
