Doğan versus Çölaşan

His simplistic world view hit a nerve in the readership, but also led to the fact that his appearances before judges hit record levels in libel cases. Without a doubt, he symbolized an all-time high for libel claims filed against Hürriyet.

Occasionally Çölaşan would fall into self-praise in declaring that he was completely "free" (that is, outside any editorial control) to comment on whichever subject he chose to. He surfed arrogantly on his popularity.

Until, that is, he was notified he was being sacked by the proprietor of the powerful Doğan Media Group, Aydın Doğan.

This was both a sharp turning point and a point of no return. Apparently infuriated, Çölaşan rapidly wrote a book, talking candidly -- but avoiding self-criticism altogether -- about his experiences as a columnist with an influential paper.

Now very famous after its umpteenth edition, the book has become solid, simple, spectacular proof of the ugly realities of the Turkish media: systematic editorial "dependency" (of the media owners), helpless chief editors who cannot control the content of the columns, an inability to stop libel and lies, inevitable influence of the economic interests and selfish concerns of the proprietors vis-à-vis the power centers in Ankara, a "climate of fear" within the institution and censorship and self-censorship.

Not surprisingly, the impact of the book -- the biggest blow to the reputation of such a powerful media group, controlling more than 40 percent of the sector -- had angered Aydın Doğan; he filed a libel suit against Çölaşan and demanded a sum of some $30,000.

In a rather remarkable verdict, the court rejected Doğan's lawyers' filing.

Up until then, the court had heard the witnesses both sides had called. Some of them -- including columnists -- claimed Çöla?an lied, others confirmed censorship consistently occurred in the paper.

The court's verdict may be interpreted as a judgment that Çölaşan was writing the truth. (Doğan had based his claims on his role in the episodes, rather than the adjectives used in the book.)

Certainly, what came out of the Üsküdar district court in İstanbul should be seen in the context of what developed into an open row between Doğan and the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government -- and what Doğan Media columnists almost in unison claim has led to "punitive measures" against the group.

Funnily enough, what Çölaşan claimed, in a nutshell, in his book, was the following: He believed he was censored because he was utterly critical of the AK Party and also because the proprietor was seriously keen and concerned about establishing/maintaining good relations with the government. In other words, what is claimed to be a ruthless silencing campaign against the group and a "threat to press freedom" was not at all on the agenda when a columnist was kept continuously under threat of censorship "if he continued to be critical of the government"!

Funnier still, in testimony to the court, the editor of Hurriyet had said that "I was frightened of the possibility that Çölaşan might carry a wire whenever we met." This claim was made by an editor who worked together with that columnist for years.

Naturally, it must be added that Çölaşan did not bother to mention any part of the ugly realities until he was sure he was fired. We also know that not only he -- as a colleague yesterday put it wonderfully -- "censored that he was censored" but also ignored it completely when others within that very newspaper, or elsewhere in the Turkish press, were subjected to the same behavior.

Çölaşan versus Doğan is, from every possible angle, a key case for those who want to fully understand the facets of the ugly realities of the Turkish media sector. Not only does it show the external pressures on the free conduct of journalism, but also the regrettable hypocrisy of those powerful media owners and their puppets who desperately cry wolf, but only when the wolf threatens them.