Anxiety, dilemma and old habits

These words were, naturally, censored by the news outlets of the Doğan Group, nowadays so keen (!) on press freedom, ethics and independence. What Baykal had said was actually nothing more than what everybody in the business has known all along.

The recent history of the Turkish press is to be written under this main chapter: the relations between governments and corrupt politicians brought us, in the ’90s, to the brink of a total monopoly by a single group and we had the bitter experience of cartel-building in the sector. All this in defiance of Article 167 of the Constitution, which bans both practices.

In 2002, when the former president vetoed a critical bill which contained sensible amendments to the Law on the Radio and Television Supreme Board (RTÜK), he was harshly targeted by Doğan media outlets. The amendments meant the media barons would not be allowed to hold shares above 20 percent in the audiovisual media market and would be banned from entering public tenders if their shares exceeded 10 percent. All the columnists in Doğan Group papers were verbally “recommended” not to write a single word in favor of the bill and were “encouraged” to criticize it.  

The gag order worked well. Not surprisingly, most of them obeyed. Those with honor could only keep silent, avoiding the subject. One of those who defied it was fired.

Meanwhile, many of those working outside Doğan warned that a dirty game was at stake, with damaging consequences for the profession. The bill was “hijacked” despite this open anxiety, and passed by the government at the time, a coalition of the Democratic Left Party (DSP), the Motherland Party (ANAP, now ANAVATAN) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).

The will of the “media bullies” was overwhelming.

This is the background, which includes many other “incidents” such as this. This also explains why there are almost no tears shed, no “solidarity” shown in the Turkish media -- other than those in Doğan -- today for the seemingly disproportionate fine imposed. I witnessed enough in my more than 10 years working as independent news ombudsman to understand the “meaningful silence” among my colleagues here.

But this should raise anxiety, because we face a dilemma: A media which is partly infected with corruption and irregularity can possibly not fulfill the major duty of uncovering corruption in society, at all, in a credible manner. It will have no effect whatsoever, because it is itself immoral, and it works on critical compromises. It creates a milieu in which self-censorship becomes routine.  

It already has.

Some may argue that “the rival press” can fulfill that role, if there is diversity. But the issue is whether it is efficient at all in a sector, more than half of which is dominated by a group accused and punished for some time, and a considerable part of which is pro-government.

I told this paper yesterday that Erdoğan follows the patterns of his predecessors, a pattern of “carrot and stick.” This is a wrong and dangerous path; it leads nowhere for the politician, and it keeps the press in full submission, in polarization, in immoral choices and it paves way to a total partisanship within. It sinks the credibility of the press to new lows. Worse, it maintains a “balance of terror” which can hit back at the system, because the problematic rules remain unchanged. Former prime ministers, so keen on a “controlled press,” fell down more quickly than they were promoted.

I shall continue to be deeply anxious if the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government sticks to this path. My concerns will remain, unless Prime Minister Erdoğan creates an autonomous tax inspection, bans media proprietors from entering public tenders, passes legislation that blocks monopolization in the sector, ban or severely restricts cross-ownership and enhances the rights of journalists by introducing a new Trade Unions' Law. I hope, in the end, common sense will prevail.