Now it’s time for the media to democratize

Highlighting that the media played a leading role in the campaign to “otherize” the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) during the March 29 local elections, during which she was the party’s deputy chairwoman for media relations, Sözen said, “From the very beginning, the media have assumed the role of being the state’s ideological apparatus.” Sözen underlined that this role peaked during periods such as the Feb. 28 postmodern coup and caused fractures in politics. Noting that implementing reform is not the only factor that distinguishes the AK Party from others, Sözen said: “The AK Party is not just a party with a democratic attitude; it is also a party that represents the majority of Turkey. We also have a mission of civilization. We have a mission of loving the creature for the sake of its creator. That’s why we do not have a very belligerent style. The tense style that stemmed from the breakdown in politics caused by the deliberate campaign during the March 29 elections is in the past. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has clearly expressed that he will not target opposition parties by name.”

Underlining that in many countries the media contribute to community development by pursuing social projects, communications professor Sözen said that by undergoing a process of democratization, the media in Turkey have become diverse enough to be able to contribute to the process.

Discrediting claims that political powers are punishing the media, Sözen answered Today’s Zaman’s questions.

We are marking the first anniversary of the March 29 elections. You have carried out many detailed studies on the results. What has been reflected onto the present day?

One issue is that during the March 29 local elections opposition parties really waged very negative campaigns. Both the Republican People’s Party [CHP] and the Nationalist Movement Party [MHP] used a negative tone in their election campaigns and conducted negative campaigns. Of course, during that process, all these campaigns targeted or, rather, “otherized” just one person, the prime minister. When you add nonpolitical opponents to this, Prime Minister Erdoğan was put in a position where he was made the other throughout the campaign. Some media organizations also took part in this campaign.

I think the media’s attitude was more effective...

As a communications professor, this is what I can say: We carefully analyzed every page and every sentence. We meticulously weighed and analyzed pre-election and post-election projects and developments. We also watched broadcasts. Interestingly and surprisingly, we saw that the images of the prime minister that were used were those where he looked the most tired or angry.

Was there a conscious selection of photographs?

It was no coincidence. We could not find a single photo out of all the hundreds of photos that were used in the media prior to the March 29 local elections where the prime minister was smiling. By contrast, the CHP’s positive aspects were emphasized. Then statements started getting harsher. Statements that personally targeted the prime minister were carefully chosen. The language that was developed to jeopardize the prime minister’s leadership was backed by photographs. One of the prime minister’s leadership attributes is being able to foresee and understand campaigns. For that reason, a serious ground of conflict has been formed since the March 29 local elections.

Is this what has engendered assessments that the government is oppressive towards the media?

These assessments are based on taxes and the judicial process. Of course, we always defend the existence of a constitutional state. If in a constitutional state there are factors that truly violate a person’s living space and there is a legal process that intervenes with this, then we need to accept it; people need to be able to protect their legal individuality when interacting with one another. Legally, we are all separate individuals. OK, we may be friends or have some close relationships but, especially in public spaces and in places where we send messages to the public, we must certainly act within the framework of the duties, liabilities and responsibilities bestowed on us by the law.

Are the media not fulfilling their responsibilities?

When we look at media owners in many parts of the world we see that they engage in many social activities that contribute to the development of a democratic society. This may be important in terms of interacting with society. Instead of just being owners of “X” and focusing on this aspect of their lives, media bosses need to identify a space for themselves where they can participate in social activities. This is the only way that there can be socialization and integration. I think this should be done with social projects that are widely participated in -- some examples of this are appearing here and there. In other words, we need a process in which our legal individuality is accepted by ourselves and others.

What role do you think a journalist has in this shortcoming?

A journalist is someone who uses a dictionary, a journalist is someone who looks at events and dates, a journalist is also someone who looks to see if there is a legal problem. I consider articles and assessments about people or events that are written without taking these factors into consideration to be intended to be popular writings. They are not very important, but because they’re put out there before doing any research or analysis, legal violations occur. Violations of personal rights occur. This is how everyone needs to think. Yes, I am writing with my legal identity and my identity as a journalist because this is what my profession requires. The profession of journalism also needs to be clarified.

Isn’t this a deep-rooted problem?

People over-embrace the role of being the state’s ideological apparatus. For some people who work for newspapers it seems that saying “I am playing the role given to me by the state” or “I embrace this role” is more professional than just fulfilling the rules of the profession. If the boss is on the side of the state, then how much can the worker resist? He ends up accepting his role as a part of the state’s ideological apparatus as well, and with time, as his job dictates, he becomes an even stauncher supporter of the state than his boss, and this becomes a culture that passes from generation to generation.

Don’t political parties have any role in the creation of this culture?

Yes, they certainly do. The system within the media also plays a role in bringing relations to this point. There was a period in which journalists and politicians were very close to each other. While journalists felt honored when they received telephone calls telling them to write a retraction to an article or to write an article, it also opened them up to serious criticism. I think this process is not within the legal formation. I don’t think it is ethical or based on principles.

Many politicians and many civilian and military bureaucrats did this. There were many news sources that told journalists, “This is what happened, why don’t you write this?” A journalist can use this as an opportunity to write a scoop. I think the politician, the bureaucrat and the retired and serving military officers who pass on that kind of information and the journalists who write it are all responsible.

Has freedom of the press always come first?

Yes, but because of years of writing and broadcasting stories without verifying them and checking the facts, journalists have actually been violating freedom of the press themselves. During the Feb. 28 period the media saw itself as an apparatus of the state. While it has played this role from the very beginning, it became more ingrained during the Feb. 28 period. Along with other actors, the media tried to shape society by inculcating the idea of danger. Public space was bombarded with messages of danger and fear. Of course, what happened while all this went on? The media abandoned its primary functions of supporting social development, informing the people and developing democracy and instead became the state’s ideological apparatus.

But now it is engaging in self-criticism with respect to its role as an ideological tool...

There’s no way the media can maintain this style forever. By enforcing the rules of its profession, the traditional mentality will change and it will become more liberal and more libertarian. It will carry out activities that educate and inform people.

In order for Turkey to become an informed society, the media must first be well positioned. Other civil rights, freedoms and respect for differences will come along with that. Do the media show enough tolerance of differences right now? A democracy is a regime of differences. This is what the media have to focus on. As a female politician, I really think the media have a masculine character. Actually more than masculine, it has a male-dominant character. I think this character needs to completely change. It is now time for the media to democratize.

A pool of female experience has been created

Aren’t there some shortcomings in the implementation of your affirmative action policy for women?

The prime minister has spoken about this as well. There have been some deficiencies in its implementation, but the affirmative action policy for women will become more institutionalized with the constitutional amendments. Despite its deficiencies, Turkish women have benefited from the policy’s message. The activities of our women’s branch are truly very successful. It has 1.2 million members. Our women’s organization is more advanced than those in Europe.

Your number of female voters is also ahead of the male voters.

Yes, we have slightly more women who support the AK Party than men. The AK Party has the highest number of female voters when compared to the other parties. The AK Party is forming a pool of women’s experience. Important messages about affirmative action for women are being delivered, especially by the president. Not only does the number of women who are active in politics need to be increased, but they also need to be in decision-making positions as well. We have an institutional memory with respect to policies for women. You can see this in every unit of our party.

Will affirmative action resolve the deficiencies in the decision-making mechanism?

There’s infrastructure in place for this. The percentage of women in academia is much better than in EU countries. There are more female doctors and engineers than in EU countries. What we need is to increase the number of women in decision-making bodies. This is the area where we fall short. I think this will be resolved with the constitutional amendment. It’s important to increase the number of women and to make their experiences in decision-making institutions more effective, whether it is in local administrations, the bureaucracy or the media.

It seems affirmative action will have an impact on female voters both in the referendum and the elections. What messages will the AK Party focus on?

The main factors that define all of our policies are trust and stability. It’s very important to have both of these. The prime minister mentions these factors in every speech. In women’s perceptions of politics, if these two values are together, then they feel more confident.