Anıtkabir statement misreported

I do not understand how a six-line statement can be so misunderstood and misreported. Please take a look at these headlines regarding the statement from Ministry of National Defense (MSB) "sources":

“MSB: Claim of body search is intentional” (Türkiye/ TGRT Haber), “They said ‘artificial intelligence’ 5 days later” (Gazete Pencere), “Statement from MSB regarding footage of soldiers being searched” (Ekonomim), “MSB makes statement 5 days later about scandalous footage” (Halk TV), MSB’s ‘Artificial Intelligence’ defense: Were soldiers searched at Anıtkabir? (Gerçek Gündem).

These are just a few examples. I could not include them all; dozens of sites also featured headlines like “…denial of the search claim.” However, the MSB statement is very different:

“The circulation of claims that generals were searched using artificial intelligence-generated photos at the ceremony held at Anıtkabir on the occasion of the August 30 Victory Day, that military personnel arriving with their families to attend the ceremony were not allowed inside, and the recirculation of footage for which our Ministry and our generals/admirals personally filed criminal complaints immediately after it was broadcast on a television channel in 2019, is an effort of discrediting and systematic disinformation against our Turkish Armed Forces.”

As can be seen, there is not a single word in the statement regarding the footage of soldiers being searched at the entrance of Anıtkabir. Because the footage captured by the ANKA News Agency in front of Anıtkabir that morning is real. Therefore, the most accurate headline would have been “The photo of the police searching the general is not real.”

The MSB is not denying the footage, but rather the photo of a police officer searching a general in the Anıtkabir courtyard. Unfortunately, some local sites used this photo, which is clearly a product of artificial intelligence. The President of the Atatürkist Thought Association, Hüsnü Bozkurt, also shared it, but later deleted it.

The statement also characterizes the claim that “soldiers arriving with their families were not allowed into Anıtkabir” and the “recirculation of footage broadcast on a TV channel in 2019” as “disinformation and discrediting.” The recirculated footage is from a program featuring the words of Yeni Akit Editor-in-Chief Murat Alan: “...you have your generals, they are all lining up behind Erdoğan like donkeys.” Indeed, that six-year-old footage has been shared repeatedly on social media in recent days as if it were new.

Another oddity is this: The news reports were written as “statement from MSB sources,” but in fact, this “statement” came from the “question-and-answer” section of Ministry Spokesperson Rear Admiral Zeki Aktürk’s meeting. Apparently, journalists could not ask about the soldiers being searched by police at the Anıtkabir entrance! It is also unknown what they were able to ask and how…

Just think, a topic that creates controversy in political circles cannot be asked about, and the statement is published with incorrect headlines; the media is denying what the ministry did not deny.

Such is the sorry state of journalism…

“Either be a journalist or a politician”

As soon as it was heard that the court had dismissed the CHP Istanbul Provincial Administration, CHP reporters immediately rushed to the Headquarters and began their live broadcast announcements from there.

They continued to wait while Chairman Özgür Özel was in an extraordinary meeting of the Central Executive Board (MYK). They were hoping that Özel would come before them at the end of the meeting and answer their questions.

When it was understood that Özel would not hold a press conference and would participate in a live broadcast on Halk TV as previously planned for that evening, they waited in front of the elevator door, hoping against hope. Unfortunately, Özel did not answer their questions there either; he walked past them and went straight to the live broadcast.

Of course, it is understandable that he kept his word and participated in the Halk TV broadcast. However, it was sad that he did not make a collective statement to the entire media on such an extraordinary day and did not answer the questions of the reporters who had been waiting for hours. Although he apologized to the reporters during the broadcast, what he did was a clear injustice.

The essence of our profession is reporting. Unfortunately, recently, reporters have both been subjected to such injustices and comments and rumors have come to be valued more than their news. News channels are overflowing with self-proclaimed commentators and experts.

Moreover, some of these commentators are people who have previously served as members of parliament or held active positions in a political party. There are also those among them who maintain active relationships with parties or work in or derive income from certain municipalities. It is impossible to tell when these people are party members and when they are journalists while they are speaking. They are presented as “journalists,” but in reality, two identities are intertwined...

Some commentators do not even act like party members in the CHP; they go further and speak like the spokesperson for one side in an internal party conflict. Of course, this has nothing to do with journalism, and they are also harming journalism. Our professional organization, the Progressive Journalists Association, also made a call to these types of dual-identity commentators two days ago:

“Undoubtedly, a journalist can also have political thoughts, but a journalist cannot have a dual identity. They cannot identify with a political party or political movement, nor can they act like its spokesperson. This is also a call to ‘former’ journalists who take office in political parties. Either be just a journalist or a politician. Do not deceive the reader and viewer, and do not use journalism as a springboard for your political interests and expectations.”

A very appropriate call. They must be either a journalist or a politician. News channel executives should also stop defining dual-identity commentators as “Journalists” on screen.

The Rabia Naz file and journalism

News examples regarding the death of Rabia Naz Vatan

The Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the death of Rabia Naz is the result of father Şaban Vatan’s seven-year-long resilient struggle.

If it weren’t for Metin Cihan, who sought answers to question marks while no one else made a sound and published the information he obtained on social media, and the opposition media, which chased every new clue and reported on every development, this file would have been closed long ago as a “suicide.”

Especially if it had been left to the judicial system and the pro-government media, this file would never have been opened; it would never have been questioned. Because father Şaban Vatan argued that Rabia Naz was hit by a car driven by the nephew of the AKP Eynesil Mayor, and that the accident was covered up with the intervention of AKP Istanbul Deputy Nurettin Canikli. Indeed, the pro-government media has turned a deaf ear to this issue for years.

Now the Constitutional Court has published its decision, and the pro-government media has published it too. However, this time they were content with writing the decision roughly without going into detail. They have no intention of reopening the file either.

Because the Constitutional Court both determines that the investigation into Rabia Naz’s death was conducted carelessly and unseriously and that the right to life was violated; and it sees “no legal benefit in conducting a re-investigation”; it only rules for 350 thousand lira in compensation. The Constitutional Court also does not want the perpetrators of this death to be revealed; on the contrary, it refers the file to the archives forever.

When members of the ruling party are involved in the matter, it is unfortunately not surprising that the pro-government media closes its eyes to this lawlessness. The duty falls once again to critical and independent journalism. We must make an effort to ensure that the Rabia Naz file is reopened and we must not let it go until justice is served.

The source problem in translated news

The news story “ChatGPT’s first documented murder: How did artificial intelligence create a killer?” was first published on NTV’s website. NTV cited the American Wall Street Journal as the source in the news story, which focuses on the effect of artificial intelligence on a 56-year-old person killing their mother and themselves.

Later, Gazete Oksijen, Rudaw, and Onedio, which used this news, did not mention any source. Euronews Turkish, Haber7, Milliyet, and Nefes cited the Wall Street Journal as the source. In the news stories of Bundle, T24, and Odatv, the source was also stated as “According to the news reported by NTV from the American Wall Street Journal.”

Unfortunately, sources are not cited in most of the translated news in our media. The attitude of not citing sources, which constitutes an attack on the rights of the outlet that produced the news, is also disrespectful to the reader/viewer. Quoting the ChatGPT news story in question without citing a source is also an ethical violation.

However, it is important where you get the news from when citing a source. Are you quoting from the outlet that did the translation, or from the original source? If you are quoting from the outlet that did the translation, it would be more accurate to state both the translating outlet and the original source, such as “According to the news reported by NTV from the American Wall Street Journal.”

But as always in journalism, we should not give up on “doubt” and “checking” in translated news either. We can only be sure that any translation is done correctly and completely by going to its source and checking it there. Moreover, some information and visuals that the translating outlet shortened and did not see a need to quote might be more suitable for our own outlet. Therefore, the most accurate thing is to accept the translated news as a clue, go to its original source, and do the translation from there.

Quoting from the original source instead of quoting through someone else’s translation allows us to avoid errors and results in a text that is more suitable for our own outlet.

In one sentence:

It was a deficiency that it was not explained to the reader that the worker visual used in Evrensel’s news story “At least 10 million people were left without income” was created with artificial intelligence.

Yeni Şafak published the news story “4 brands, one power: Albayrak in Erzurum” as if only the companies of the Albayrak Group, which owns the newspaper, participated in the Agriculture and Livestock Fair.

Businessman Besim Tibuk hurled insults at Erol Simavi, the former owner of Hürriyet, on YouTube; Haber7, Bundle, Odatv, and Yeni Akit reproduced the insults by reporting them exactly as they were.

The news stories published on the same day, Akşam’s “FETÖ member Assan has a long record,” Yeni Şafak’s “Assan has both Bylock and payphone,” and Sabah’s “No passage for FETÖ spies in Assan,” were presented as signed exclusive news, but their contents were the same.

com legitimized violence with the headline “Here is the justification of the father who shot his daughter.”

The headline “Fish ate his hands and face” that Sabah and Karar put on the news about the recovery of businessman Halil Yukay’s lifeless body from the sea was disrespectful to the memory of the deceased and of a nature that would cause a traumatic effect on readers.

The İnternethaber site attributed the words of “one person” to all CHP members with the headline “Said at the CHP rally: We worship İmamoğlu, we came to give our lives.”

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