Scandal at WAN-IFRA / WEF Congress in Hyderabad
by
YAVUZ BAYDAR

As widely reported by the Turkish media, the reason was found in part of the group’s annual statement about freedom of the press around the globe, the part on the state of press freedom in Turkey.

It became immediately obvious that the inclusion of Turkey in the group of five most restrictive countries (which were condemned for violating press freedom) as well as the almost exclusive focus on the tax evasion case against the Doğan Media Group was a result of ill-informed, superficial, biased and sloppy work done by the organization.

The WEF, which is the flank of the organization representing editors and journalists and not owners, had unethically and unusually invited the daughter of the owner of Doğan to make a presentation at its board meeting in Hyderabad, and was entirely indifferent to non-Doğan affiliated editors and journalists. This was a scandal.

I contacted, constantly, the leaders and managers of the organization over the past few days, pointing out the fact that the manner in which the Doğan case was treated would alienate the rest of the Turkish media and leave WAN-IFRA and WEF alone with one group, causing profound problems of credibility and representation for the organization in the future.

The entire leadership remained, at times in a patronizing manner, indifferent to the dissenting views conveyed to them. The result became a total disrespect for the reasonable objections voiced. Their position remained unchanged.

For the record, I would like to share with the readers, what I, in despair, wrote to them, before I also left Hyderabad. It is as follows:

“As I understand, the inclusion of the recent tax evasion case in the latest WAN- IFRA annual statement as a ‘major threat to press freedom’ caused, among the Turkish members [other than those affiliated with Doğan] of WAN-IFRA, widespread discontent and led to a joint, written protest. I, too, felt rather disturbed.

“As a journalist for over 30 years, and as an independent ombudsman in the Turkish media landscape for over a decade, until now a keen supporter of WEF as a pluralistic, fair and credible platform in the international scene, please allow me make a few comments about the case.

“I find the perspective with which WAN-IFRA approaches the Turkish government vs. Doğan Media tax evasion case partial; its judgment utterly simplistic and its wording problematic.  This is a case whose arrival has been rather inevitable, in which there are no innocent parts, and no ‘pure’ victims.

“As outside observers, it must have seemed clear to you, that while the Turkish state, governments and parliaments have been known to keep the leash on Turkish media with various methods, Turkey’s media proprietors have been notoriously on the record as cutting secret or open deals with circles of power, casting alliances with undemocratic elements, with state or non-state actors, often defying the law in order to crash their rivals and exercise irregularities to expand their businesses beyond the limits of law.

“There are various elements missing in the WAN-IFRA 2009 statement about Turkey. While I agree that the quantity of cases filed against journalists should indeed cause increased concern, I would have wished to see firm demands for amendments to various laws in Turkey, laws that continue to curb freedom of expression both in the media and the Internet.  

“I would also have wished to see WAN-IFRA note, with increasing satisfaction, that despite certain limitations, Turkish journalists, those who write columns in particular, continue to expand the domain of free speech, boldly challenging and breaking all taboos, uncovering organized crime disguised as political engineering.  

“Indeed, from that lucid perspective, the Turkish press enjoys and practices enormous freedom, unprecedented in republican history. This includes Doğan outlets, too.

 “But, sadly, the case of tax evasion against Doğan has come to the fore as ‘the case’ of a threat to press freedom, overshadowing the legal limitations to our work I mentioned above, and I find it deeply troubling.  

“My concern is the fact that not the full picture, but only a selected part of it has been highlighted. This may be misleading for our international colleagues, it may as well damage the credibility of WAN-IFRA in the eyes and minds of colleagues in Turkey.  

“It is a complex case.

“If you ask any headhunter of international reputation what the most troubled sector in Turkey is, the unanimous answer you will receive will be: the media. It has remained a battlefield for various political powers, and greedy, ruthless media barons, who fought against media regulation by using their media power as weapon. A ‘jungle mentality’ prevailed. It has, at times, brought good journalism to the brink of extinction.

“It is well known that Mr. Aydın Doğan, through his media empire, controls around 65 percent of ad revenues in Turkey. By any decent democratic standards, it is unacceptable. Mr. Doğan has been known to be constantly on the move, expanding his empire by any means necessary. He set ugly patterns in which he cut deals with weak coalitions during the ‘90s in his favor and used dirty methods to weaken his rivals’ competitive power and to destroy their media outlets.  

“Depending on whether his demands were met or not met, he hired and fired colleagues and encouraged character assassinations, solely to further increase his personal business interests. The intent was a monopoly.

“Mr. Doğan was, too, in the lead to cleanse all trade union activity and affiliation from his media companies, and those who argued otherwise were fired arbitrarily.  

“Mr. Doğan also fired a number of columnists -- including an independent news ombudsman -- all of whom wished to remain loyal to the principles of journalism, in order to serve public interests, rather than the interests of a greedy owner.

“There is enough material and testimony to prove how Mr. Doğan, for an overwhelming segment of Turkey’s decent press corps, came to symbolize the path that led to the end of editorial independency, a key to credible journalism in the service of democracy. He is seen as the stumbling block, rather than supporter, of a pluralistic, diverse, free media sector, which would operate lawfully, and fairly.

“Any random choice and arbitrary reading of translated material -- books, interviews with other media owners and journalists -- would prove the case.  

“I would particularly recommend the recent, very popular books by Mr. Emin Çölaşan -- a columnist known for his fiercely critical views of the current government -- who was fired because of his opinions. In his two consecutive books he describes in detail all the ‘shady dealings’ of Mr. Doğan with the government, deputies and other figures of power, for sheer business interests.

“It is my conviction, that Mr. Doğan wished to continue the same pattern with the current government, and when his demands were not met he used his media power as a weapon against it, since approximately 2004 until very recently. A study of his influential print and TV outlets in this period would prove easily of the polluted journalism he promoted.  

“When journalists and opinion makers in other media were targeted -- such as the late Hrant Dink, assassinated by nationalist thugs -- and many had to live with body guards, the Doğan family remained totally indifferent. Their concept of press freedom and free speech was apparently limited to the ownership interests.

“Doğan flagship Hürriyet is the paper solely responsible for the deadly witch hunt against Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk, who had to leave the country because Hürriyet launched a campaign against him for his views about Kurds and Armenians slaughtered in Anatolia.  

“There are many examples like these.

“In short, the record of Doğan on press freedom is not that bright.

“I am among those writers in Turkey who say that a corrupt press can not credibly uncover corruption in any democracy. A corrupt media, in fact, undermines democracy. The brief history of Turkey’s media owners has shown us time and again that this view is very valid.  

“My concern, therefore, differs in what is said in the WAN-IFRA statement: I demand that legislation is amended in order to stop corruption and the utilization of media for interests other than decent journalism.

“Unfortunately, I note with sadness that the current WEF board member from Turkey, as well as other colleagues on the payroll of Doğan, prefer to present this case in a way which would indicate that media companies should be enjoying impunity from tax evasion. It is to be noted with dismay that WEF lets itself be manipulated this way.

“We all know that media companies are to be treated as any other company, and also be subject to coverage in the media. The way Doğan presents the case internationally is also an example of a media group abusing its power.

“This case is a giant symptom of a malady in Turkish media. Attempts to deal with irregularity, unlawful behavior and corruption must be much more carefully monitored, with respect to the judiciary and with the root causes of this malady in mind.

“The root causes of the tax evasion case, as well as the case of irregularity in stocks and print paper imports filed against Doğan must be sought and highlighted. This is, I believe, the duty of WAN-IFRA, which must not be fearful of being critical of its members who may act out of law and ethics. It is imperative, too, that WAN-IFRA exercise great caution about legal processes, with wisdom on the complexities they may present.      

“It should also be noted that both the EU Progress Report and the latest resolution presented to the European Parliament -- prepared by Ms. Ria Oomen-Ruijten -- emphasize the issues of abuse of power by media owners and the need for a new, clear legislation on several fields. They cover property concentration, foreign investments and shares, and job security not to mention articles such as 301 and the infamous Internet Law.

 “There are various points which should be brought to your attention:  Media proprietors in Turkey must be banned from entering public tenders, in order to end ‘carrot and stick’ relations between media companies and governments. In order to strengthen pluralism and fair competition in Turkish media sector, the set of recommendations by the Council of Europe (No. [R. 99] 1) titled ‘Measures to Promote Media Pluralism’ (dated Jan. 19, 1999) must be brought to and kept in constant attention for the Turkish government and Parliament. Cross-ownership must be either banned or severely restricted. The Turkish Parliament without delay must pass a Trade Union Law. The market share for foreign actors in the Audiovisual segment must be raised from approximately 25 percent (currently) to at least 51 percent.   

“We need a clean, bold, diverse and independent media in Turkey, a country in a dynamic transformation toward a full-scale democracy.

“We shall struggle for legal guarantees of our freedom, we will challenge restrictive power circles, we will defy attempts at censorship, we will go on breaking taboos and encourage wide public debate, we will fight for ethical behavior; but in order to be able to do all that we have to fight corruption in the media, which is the primary cause for self-censorship and abuse of media power in today’s Turkey, more than anything else.  

“These thoughts may be of use as addendum to your statement, because they reflect a widespread belief among Turkish journalists, which also explains the fact that almost none of them has showed any solidarity with the group in question.”

Yavuz Baydar was a former president of the International Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO).