Have we passed the point of no return?

For a long time, there has been a corruption and decay in Turkey that is growing right before our eyes.

Do not think of these as abstract concepts; with the events happening one after another in schools—whether you call it tragedy or brutality—it has now taken on flesh and bone. 

Turkey has been shaken.

We are all racking our brains to understand what is going on.

This is a result of the political Islamist mentality's insistence since 2002 on raising a "pious and vengeful" generation.

There is no two ways about it; the climate of violence in Turkey today has emerged as a result of the government's political choices.

Let us underline with a thick pen that this corruption and decay are manifesting themselves not only in economic indicators or political debates, but in the most fundamental cell of society, namely its moral fabric.

I am not just talking about mafia series that encourage people to violence, where jackals with headscarves and guns rain bullets on each other, where Botoxed teenage girls stare meaninglessly at the leading man for hours, and where the feudal lord and tribal order are glorified.

To understand the moral erosion in my fellow citizens, it is enough to look at the daytime television programs.

Whatever was once called "shameful," considered "private," and supposed to remain behind closed doors is now being displayed under the bright lights of television screens.

In recent years, people's pain, vulnerabilities, family dramas, health problems, and even their most intimate secrets have been turned into "content."

Let us not dismiss the picture with just media criticism; this is, with an accurate diagnosis, a social pathology that must be treated. 

Let us continue...

The mill of the agenda in this country turns very fast.

Most of the time, we either do not see, skip, or, more gravely, never take seriously the issues that we should be debating for days.

Recently, Zuhal Karakoç, a Kahramanmaraş deputy from the MHP—the unauthorized but influential partner of the government—submitted a legislative proposal to Parliament that envisions bans or heavy fines for broadcasts that violate privacy, including some daytime programs and news bulletins.

According to the draft, the publication of content regarding individuals' private lives, family life, home privacy, health information, and economic and social status is prohibited unless there is a clear "public interest."

The regulation does not only cover daytime programs; it also includes news bulletins.

The prepared text plans to prevent the use of private information as a tool for ratings, exhibitionism, or entertainment.

Well, looking at it, it does not seem so bad up to this point!

The new legislative proposal can be considered a reflex against the corruption in my fellow citizens and the social decay that no one has been able to stop.

The regulation, framed by the term "public interest," aims to prevent the reckless exposure of personal lives.

Let us draw attention to the term "public interest" once again here.

On paper, it sounds reasonable and logical. Because privacy has almost ceased to exist in Turkey. Daytime programs have turned into courtrooms that pick people's lives apart; if we set aside those who deem themselves "opposition," the news bulletins on sycophantic channels are in pursuit of either hit-job journalism or government propaganda.

However, it is not that simple.

Because two issues are colliding here:

First, the moral disintegration of society and the disappearance of privacy; second, the possibility that regulations introduced against this disintegration may bring other risks with them.

First, one must answer the question, "Why did Turkey really reach this point?"

But this answer should not be sought in television programs.

Screens are the showcase of the corruption in society; what we see is a reflection of what is happening within the country. Let no one deceive themselves with talk of "Anatolian wisdom" or anything of the sort.

The cultural erosion that has been going on for years, the unlimited exposure opportunities offered by social media, the misinterpretation of individuality, and most importantly, the uncontrolled growth of the desire to be "visible" have created a climate that encourages people to disclose their own lives.

Today, my fellow citizens are marketing their privacy instead of protecting it. A kind of digital exhibitionist economy has emerged.

Pain is sold, tears are sold, shame is sold...

Unfortunately, the biggest buyer of this sale is my fellow citizens themselves.

In other words, do not look for the trouble only in the media; this is also a matter of demand!

But the media's responsibility does not disappear.

On the contrary, it increases.

What is happening in daytime programs today is far beyond the ratings race; this is a process of "eroding values."

Turning people's most fragile moments and most private issues into an element of entertainment is not only immoral but also an act that wounds the souls of those who keep their distance from these issues.

The intent of the legislative proposal in question is important. It is clear that privacy needs to be protected.

However... let us place a big question mark on the placement of an extremely vague concept like "public interest" at the center of this regulation.

What is public interest? 

Who will determine it? 

According to which criteria will it be measured?

If there is no clear answer to these questions, what will emerge will only be a control mechanism.

This is exactly where the problem lies.

One does not need a crystal ball or to drink from a fortune teller's cup to predict that the control mechanism will not only protect privacy but also limit the flow of information.

It is enough to look at what the government has done since 2002!

Let us pay attention to the fine line here.

On one side is the obligation to protect people's private lives; on the other is the public's right to access accurate and complete information.

This balance must be established correctly.

For example, what will happen if an allegation of corruption or an issue related to the private lives of public officials becomes impossible to publish under the pretext of "privacy"?

Or if an event that concerns the public is censored by saying there is "no public interest"?

These possibilities show that the regulation is not just a moral intervention; it is also a tool that could have political and legal consequences.

Privacy has truly collapsed in Turkey.

Issues that were once discussed within the family are now debated in front of millions. People cease to be the subjects of their own lives and turn into 'stories.' These stories are often presented in a way that is detached from reality, dramatized, exaggerated, and manipulated.

This creates two dangerous consequences in society.

First, desensitization.

A society that constantly watches the pain of others eventually becomes numb to this pain. Tears no longer create an impact; drama becomes mundane. This leads to a weakening of the ability to empathize.

Second, normalization.

If people are constantly exposed to privacy violations, after a while, they begin to accept this as normal.

It must be said clearly, this is the most dangerous point. Because afterwards, it becomes unclear what is right and what is wrong.

Therefore, the issue is beyond the effort of 'media regulation.' It is a matter of social rehabilitation.

Laws are of course necessary. But to say they are sufficient on their own would be naive.

If my fellow citizens do not remember the value of privacy again, even the strictest bans cannot stop this decay.

Because the issue is not just in the supply; it is also in the demand.

As long as people do not stop watching, similar content will continue to be produced.

That is why the solution must be multi-layered. 

Media ethics must be redefined, control mechanisms must be made transparent, and most importantly, social awareness must be increased. 

The importance of privacy must be re-emphasized in a wide range of areas, from education to cultural policies. 

Otherwise, the rest is just empty talk.

Otherwise, the daytime programs we criticize today will go, and other formats will take their place. But in essence, nothing will change.

In short, when viewed from afar, the legislative proposal in question can be considered a product of a need. However, how this need is met is at least as important as the need itself. If this regulation is implemented with transparent and objective criteria, truly for the purpose of protecting privacy, it could create a barrier against social corruption.

But if it opens the door to arbitrary practices through open-ended concepts like "public interest," then this regulation will bring other debates with it.

Unfortunately, the government's track record on these issues is not good at all. We know very well that it never misses an opportunity to silence the voice of my fellow citizens.

Turkey has long been in search of a balance. A balance trapped between freedom and control, individual rights and social values.

The issue of privacy is at the very center of this balance.

Perhaps the real question is: What do we really want to protect?

The dignity of people, or the comfort of the political Islamist regime and the system?

The answer to this question will be the determinant not of how it is applied if the proposal becomes law, but of what kind of society Turkey will turn into in the future, and with that, let us put a period to our article.