A journalist should be able to upset political parties

The pro-government media takes sides in the relentless operations targeting CHP-run municipalities. They report on these operations using language that is judgmental and devoid of objectivity. However, when an event touches the government or is likely to cause them discomfort, their approach changes instantly.

The report by T24's Asuman Aranca, titled 'The name of Yüksel Kocaman, a Court of Cassation member and former Chief Public Prosecutor, has emerged in the Ayhan Bora Kaplan file: Payment for a vehicle made by Kaplan's assistant,' was cited by BirGün, Gazete Pencere, Halk TV, Sözcü, and Nefes. However, the pro-government media completely ignored this story, which the opposition media deemed significant! None of them published it.

Yet, a major scandal was at hand. The report provided evidence, through documents entered into the case file, that the legal professional, who is still a member of the Court of Cassation, was in contact with a criminal organization while serving as the Chief Public Prosecutor of a city like Ank

ara, and that this organization paid for a vehicle he purchased! How can one believe in the sincerity of a media outlet that ignores the relationship between a high-ranking judicial member and the mafia?

Another example was a social media post by journalist Fuat Uğur. Fuat Uğur asked whether Agricultural Credit Cooperatives General Manager Hüseyin Aydın was earning a monthly income of 1.5 million liras, including salary and fringe benefits. After a while, Fuat Uğur, complaining that 'Aydın had intervened by involving people he could not refuse,' wrote, 'What he did is, to put it mildly, shameful; it is an attempt to escape and exert pressure to suppress the truth.' However, he later deleted both posts.

Setting aside the issue of Fuat Uğur deleting these posts under pressure, the pro-government media also ignored Hüseyin Aydın's 1.5 million lira monthly income. None of them reported on it. When partisanship replaces journalism, the sense of justice disappears, and so does the conscience...

A journalist should be able to upset political parties

'A journalist does not try to steer politicians, does not think on their behalf, nor does he worry for them, but he does not hesitate to upset them when necessary.'

I wrote these lines exactly three years ago. During the process of convincing Meral Akşener to return to the 'Table of Six' after she had walked away before the elections, some journalists in the opposition media were acting with a 'fan' mentality, lynching those who took a critical approach. Throughout the election process, they viewed all of the CHP's activities through the eyes of a fan, constantly applauding them.

Unfortunately, the opposition media is not in a better place than it was three years ago. Following the political operations carried out by the AKP government using the judiciary as a weapon, the instinct to protect the CHP has intensified even further. Of course, a journalist should stand against injustice and defend democracy, but this should not lead to ignoring wrongs, no matter where they occur.

Abandoning a critical approach toward the CHP turns the opposition media into an 'opposition' itself. Being an opposition media outlet harms journalism first and foremost, and subsequently, it harms the CHP and democracy. The opposition media should not hesitate to criticize or upset CHP members when necessary.

However, the opposition media is hesitant to criticize the CHP. For example, on April 5, headlines appeared in the pro-government media such as 'VIP bribe from the municipal treasury' (Akşam), '8 million VIP favor from Uşak to Özgür Özel' (Sabah), 'CHP-style custom upholstery' (Türkiye), and 'Özel's official vehicle bought with Uşak's money' (Yeni Şafak). These reports were also quoted verbatim on television.

CHP spokesperson Zeynel Emre held a press conference in Beylikdüzü that same afternoon; the opposition journalists in attendance did not ask about this allegation! Moreover, this claim in the pro-government media did not even become a news story in the opposition media. Since it was not reported there, no statement was issued by the CHP either.

In fact, AKP Uşak MP İsmail Güneş raised this allegation in the Turkish Grand National Assembly the following day; CHP Group Deputy Chairman Ali Mahir Başarır replied, 'You are slandering, show the documents, prove it.' Güneş responded, 'It appeared in the press. Then object to it.' This debate was not covered in the media, except by the ANKA and İHA agencies and local media.

Furthermore, on April 1, Sabah had claimed, based on 'the statement of a secret witness in the Uşak investigation,' that a vehicle was purchased for Özgür Özel in exchange for a tender for 5 million liras; the CHP Communications department had released the invoice proving that the CHP had paid for the vehicle. The 'purchase' allegation, which the CHP had refuted, had transformed four days later into the claim that '7.7 million liras were paid from the Uşak Municipality treasury for the luxury design of Özel's official vehicle.'

If the opposition media had pursued this, the claim could have been clarified and the question marks could have been removed.

Warning with "background" notes

In its announcement regarding the attack in front of the Israeli Consulate General building, RTÜK stated, "It has been determined that unverified footage that could cause public outrage has been shared in some broadcasts." It then issued a threat, stating, "It is a legal obligation for all broadcasters to rely solely on statements from official authorities and to refrain from sharing footage of uncertain origin."

There is no legal obligation in terrorism reporting to "rely solely on statements from official authorities." Nor can there be such an obligation in journalism. A journalist takes an official statement, investigates it, and writes it up along with verified information. Especially in this era, where official statements often fail to convey the truth, writing news based solely on such statements does not lead the journalist to the truth.

Furthermore, who are these "those who share unverified footage"? If such a media organization exists, it is unfair to portray the entire media as if they are "sharing unverified footage" instead of taking action against the specific offender.

They were forced into this, as RTÜK did not use this phrasing on its own. The "Background" note sent to the media by the Presidency after the attack also stated, "The use of visual content should be kept to a minimum, and unverified or raw footage should not be circulated." The note also requested that the attack not be presented as being "directed at the Israeli Consulate General." A portion of this note was used in an Anadolu Agency (AA) report, attributed to "sources."

However, even the pro-government media did not limit themselves to "official statements" in their coverage of the attack. Many, including Sabah and A Haber, described the event as a "consulate attack" in their reports. Television channels also did not refrain from broadcasting footage of the moment of the clash.

In fact, while the Ministers of Interior and Justice defined the perpetrators as an "organization that exploits religion" without naming the group, almost the entire pro-government media reported that they were members of "DAESH" (ISIS). Opposition media also named the organization in their reports.

Let me also point out two errors in the pro-government media. Official statements indicated that the attackers captured wounded were the brothers Onur and Enes Çelik. However, two days after the attack, Yeni Şafak published a report titled "The wounded terrorist is not Enes Çelik," stating that one of the attackers was not Onur Çelik, but a person named Ahmet İmrak. Yet, as if it had never published such a report, the same newspaper stated in its news the following day that "the treatment of terrorists Onur Çelik and Enes Çelik is continuing"! If a report is incorrect, a correction should have been issued; this is sheer irresponsibility.

In Hürriyet's report titled 'Enes rented the vehicle,' it first stated, 'It was determined that Enes Çelik rented the car from İzmit.' Immediately afterward, it said, 'the vehicle determined to have been rented by one of the attackers, Onur Ç.'

Did Onur rent the vehicle, or did Enes? It is completely muddled, and this is in a report that is only five sentences long...

Viewership ratings of news channels

Yılmaz Özdil was the unofficial manager of Sözcü TV and its newspaper. We do not know the exact reason for his departure. What we do know is that in his post following his resignation, he blamed certain CHP executives:

'I congratulate Burhanettin Bulut and Gökhan Günaydın. I did my best to defend independent journalism, risking being stoned by the very people we fought for; I told the truth straight, and life will surely teach what I failed to convey.'

Was Yılmaz Özdil forced to leave due to pressure from CHP executives, as he implied? When Yılmaz Özdil left in March 2023, similar allegations were made; at that time, a statement published in Sözcü stated that Özdil left of his own volition, adding, 'No political party or institution can pressure, give instructions to, or have a writer fired from Sözcü newspaper.'

Since Sözcü did not make such a statement this time, I am not sure if one can conclude that they are not at the same point as they were two years ago and that they were not bothered by his comments regarding the influence of the CHP.

The right thing to do is for the Sözcü management to make a statement. Sözcü owes an explanation to its readers and viewers.

It was also said and written that the failure of Sözcü TV's ratings (viewership rates) to rise played a role in Yılmaz Özdil's departure. I looked at the TİAK measurements. In November 2025, before Özdil and his team started their duties, Sözcü TV's daily average rating was 0.15, and its share was 0.91. Last March, however, Sözcü TV's rating had risen to 0.18, and its share to 1.05. It seems the channel's viewership rates did not fall, but they only increased very slightly.

Moreover, Halk TV's viewership rates also increased during the same period. Halk TV's rating last month was 0.44, and its share was 2.54. It was the third most-watched channel after CNN Türk and TRT Haber.

Of course, it is also a fact that Yılmaz Özdil crossed the boundaries of journalism by engaging in disputes with CHP executives and using insulting, derogatory language.

A report that refutes the denial

Last week, I wrote that Justice Minister Akın Gürlek's statement, 'New buildings or necessary facilities can probably be built there,' would not mean a denial of the claim that 'a special residence is being built for Abdullah Öcalan on İmralı.'

Indeed, the report published in Türkiye newspaper under the byline of Yücel Kayaoğlu, titled 'No villa will be built, he will not be able to leave İmralı,' clarified the matter:

'Renovations are being carried out in one of the buildings on the İmralı Prison campus. An area partitioned by a wall will be allocated to Öcalan as a study office, and basic necessities for his accommodation will be provided.'

This information does not confirm Akın Gürlek's statement. No new building is being constructed; rather, renovations are being made to an existing building, and for Öcalan, at that...

Despite this, it was strange that the lead of the report stated, 'Despite Gürlek's denial, this debate has not been put to rest.' Because this very report continued the 'debate' and refuted the minister's words.

In a single sentence:

Instead of publishing the words of Nevzat Bahtiyar, who is being retried in the Narin Güran murder case, as a 'defense' or 'allegation,' Türkiye newspaper reported them as confirmed information with the headline, 'Uncle Salim said, "Cut Narin into pieces."'

In the reports by Sabah and Milliyet regarding the 'dissolution of the MHP İstanbul Provincial Organization,' not a single word was included about the reason for this decision; only the party's statement was published.

Erman Toroğlu and Yasin Yıldırım engaged in product placement on the Sözcü TV program 'If there is a match, there is Erman Hoca,' by placing two soda cans of a specific brand in front of them.

Akşam, Milliyet, Sabah, Yeni Akit, and Yeni Şafak newspapers published a full-page promotion for the AKP-run Selçuk (Konya) Municipality as if it were a news report, without including an 'advertisement' disclaimer.

Yeni Akit, in its report on the death of Yalçın Küçük, used the headline 'His surname was Küçük (Small), his sins were great,' positioning itself as an 'authority to judge sins' and spewing hate.

The local website Ayıntap wrote that rumors of AKP Gaziantep Provincial Board member Selami Yetkinşekerci's 'parliamentary candidacy were causing discomfort among citizens'; and then

They published an apology text stating that 'the public loves and respects Yetkinşekerci'.

FOR YOUR CRITICISM, COMPLAINTS, AND SUGGESTIONS: [email protected]