There are economic, ideological and sociological reasons for this shameful record. But a brief analysis of these reasons shows that the Turkish media structure has to change in the medium term.Turkey's media tycoon Aydın Doğan, who controls about 60 percent of Turkish media, papers and TV stations, last week gave an interview to Taraf columnist and The Economist Turkey representative Amberin Zaman, telling her that, with the exception of a few, none of his media outlets generate any profit. Knowing that his media organs are not principled defenders of ideals such as democracy, human rights or the EU process, one wonders why a businessman would stubbornly stick to owning media outlets that lose him money. In countries such as Turkey, where transparency is not a virtue and the state owns almost everything from sugar factories to shoe manufacturing plants, the answer is not surprising.
As Doğan himself said when trying to blacken his competitor magnate, Mehmet Emin Karamehmet, who owns Turkey's biggest cellular phone operator, Turkcell, and several media outlets, "some businessmen" keep media outlets that generate financial losses for economic gains in their other enterprises. We also know that Doğan is someone who always has some business with the state, either in the form of getting financial concessions or buying state-owned enterprises at competitive prices. While he is not a bright businessman when it comes to generating profit by his media outlets, he has "surprisingly" managed to constantly multiply his fortune.
From very humble origins in the 1980s, he has risen to today's prominence and is now one of Turkey's wealthiest people. Considering how he complains about the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) abuse of state power against him nowadays, one wonders what this almighty state was doing in the pre-AK Party period or how he was protecting himself. It will not come as a shock to discover an unspoken agreement between him and lawless generals, politicians and bureaucrats. The archives of the Turkish media are full of such alleged dealings involving Mr. Doğan. Although we do not have proof of such dealings, the outcomes are observable. What is more, there is no plausible explanation for the Doğan media's distaste for full democracy and their love of corrupt bureaucrats and politicians.
Doğan media are sensitive about protecting İstanbul business tycoons' interests too so long as they do not compete with Mr. Doğan. Thus, it is fair to say that Doğan media represent Turkey's old elite, composed of the abovementioned undemocratic bureaucrats, generals, politicians and big business owners of İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir. It is thus not surprising to see that Doğan media now fully support the Republican People's Party (CHP), the political wing of the old elite.
But this section is now only 20 percent of society. Moreover, according to Professor Erol Katırcıoğlu's recent research, while these business tycoons generated almost two-thirds of all income in Turkey and employed two-thirds of the labor force in 1987, in 2004 the newly emerging Anatolian middle class generated this amount and employed two-thirds of the workers. That means not only the political center but also the economic center is moving decisively toward a socially conservative but economically liberal and export-minded, pro-EU and pro-globalization Anatolian bourgeoisie.
Both Doğan media and the CHP now only represent demographically 20 percent and economically 33 percent of the society. But he continues to control more than 60 percent of the media. It is obvious that this composition will change.
In terms of ideology and weltanschauung, the Doğan media have never represented the average Turk. They are uncomfortable with society's religion, traditions, history, heroes and values but have endeavored to impose theirs, which are never universal but anachronistic, from top down. As society becomes more literate and education levels rise quickly, the Doğan media will have to change on this front too or they will continue to marginalize themselves.
