The parasocial trap: Altaylı, Canikligil, and Aysever

Our country has a criminal record when it comes to freedom of thought and expression. Our media culture, our legal system, and our social perception interpret freedom of expression narrowly.

Topics that should be easily discussed turn into taboos. We end up skirting around these taboos.

In mainstream media, it is difficult to find dissenting opinions due to the political climate in the country, the financial interests of media owners, and the influence of the judiciary. Consequently, mainstream media is not widely favored.

The opposition segment in particular, and especially the educated, follow social media instead of mainstream media.

The individuals mentioned in the title have a considerable audience. Those who cannot start their day without listening to Fatih Altaylı in the mornings, Enver Aysever's loyal audience of radical non-conformists, and white-collar workers and students who consume FluTv like water in the cultural sphere...

Fatih Altaylı, İlker Canikligil, and Enver Aysever are very successful individuals on social media. They have a loyal audience. They showcase opinions and guests that are contrary to the mainstream. It is clear that one of the factors behind this great success is that the audience finds sincerity while watching these channels and feels as if they are included in a conversation similar to a friendship or acquaintance. The audience feeling these emotions is critical to the success of the programs. However, the issue is not limited to this. The people running the programs likely possess a similar sincerity. This sincerity seems to open the door to candor and a lack of calculation.

Setting İlker Canikligil aside, both Fatih Altaylı and Enver Aysever are people who have broadcast on mainstream television for years. They are intellectuals who know censorship and self-censorship very well. Both have allowed their guests to speak at length in their conversations with those holding dissenting views and have signed off on sincere conversations that will go down in our television history. Therefore, it is certain that these individuals know where and how to speak. They likely do not need any advice on this matter from someone like me.

As for İlker Canikligil, he may not be very experienced in taking political stances or making statements. However, there is no doubt that as a Saint Joseph graduate, he is a good debater, or at the very least, possesses that culture.

So, what is the problem then? If these people know how to speak and debate, why can they speak so uncalculatedly? For my part, I am of the opinion that no crime defined in the Turkish Penal Code was committed in the speech that led to Enver Aysever's arrest. As for Fatih Altaylı, it can be concluded that his statements do not contain a crime when not interpreted with malice, not taken out of context, and when his long-term political stance is taken into account. Because in criminal procedure, the principle of expanding freedoms and interpreting ambiguity in statements in favor of the suspect applies. I am also of the opinion that İlker Canikligil's statement did not essentially aim to display a political stance, and that too much importance was placed on what was essentially a casual chat among friends. Still, even if these statements do not directly contain a crime, they do not appear to be sufficiently thought out or measured. Moreover, I believe that if we were to talk in a calm environment, we would agree with these broadcasters that these things should have been expressed more carefully or changed entirely.

THE DILEMMA OF AUTHENTICITY

But why do both these broadcasters and social media users utter expressions that are not said in old-school broadcasting or in speeches made to crowds? In fact, this issue was discussed years ago. In their article titled ''Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction'' published in 1956, Donald Horton and R. Richard Wohl explained the one-sided, imaginary sense of intimacy and social bond that audiences form with famous people in the media. They defined this feeling as parasocial interaction (PSI). Audiences perceive the commentator as a close friend. Indeed, these individuals appear accessible, sincere, and authentic. In old media channels, this ''appearance'' could be characterized as an illusion used to sell. However, in social media channels, both the audience and the programmers find themselves in the same feeling. They find themselves revealing their thoughts and instantaneous reactions as ''unmasked'' and ''unfiltered.'' Users who constantly write comments on X or users who live on Instagram experience the same thing.

People with a strong sense of PSI express themselves as ''uncensored,'' ''without self-censorship,'' ''relaxed,'' ''uncalculated,'' ''sincere,'' and ''reactive.'' Beyond the fact that the conditions they are in push them to this, since a measure of success in the work they do is to create, strengthen, and sustain this feeling in the audience, they have inevitably developed themselves in this direction. This also has a price: They have reconstructed their time and perception of space outside the familiar field, on the periphery of social media.

PRIVACY IS TRANSFORMING

The ''authenticity'' that the audience and the programmer cling to tightly eliminates the distinction between the private/personal and the public. The curtains are lifted, and the living room walls of the house turn into an amphitheater where the audience sits silently but approvingly. In the eyes of the programmer, the audience seats do not trigger a performance alarm but rather wrap the programmer in the sincere social environment they have entered. Ultimately, the filters are gone. The programmer begins to reveal their own troubles, instantaneous thoughts, and expressions whose logical and cultural consequences they cannot calculate.

With the effect of social media being present everywhere at every moment, almost every social media user can send messages, share comments, and repeat posts at any moment of the day and in any cognitive state. As a result, crimes such as lynching, harassment, and insults can be committed easily via social media with a form of intent that differs from its usual state. This state where privacy is removed is extremely dangerous for both the perpetrator and the victim. Privacy has transformed. What needs to be protected has become fragile.

We are all part of a process that needs to be treated, realized, and supported. The millions behind the titles of victim, perpetrator, and audience are learning to cope with this new situation. Let us not make the price of learning heavy. Let us not destroy, and not let others destroy, social media users who use uncalculated, sincere, authentic, and immoderate expressions, whether they are famous or unknown.

I wish for us to bring about, through joint effort, the days when we use expressions more carefully and are less offended or affected by them as soon as possible.