'Information note' journalists

The secret behind why the same stories have been published in pro-government media outlets since the very first day of the operations targeting the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IBB) and Ekrem İmamoğlu has been revealed. It turns out the prosecutor's office has been sending an "information note" to certain journalists!

On the day of the "third wave" of detentions in the "IBB Operation," CHP Chairman Özgür Özel mentioned this "information note":

"A two-page note was sent from the prosecutor's office to reporters and journalists. It is not official information; it contains gossip; it says this person is that person's lover, this person is that person's what-have-you..."

Halktv.com.tr also obtained the information note and published a story titled, "New scandal in IBB operation: Information note sent to pro-government media from a single source." That same evening, on a program on TGRT Haber, Cem Küçük confirmed to Gürkan Hacır that they were being sent information notes, saying, "An information note is coming from the prosecutor's office again, and we are sharing it in the group. You are aware of it too," adding the word "again" for emphasis...

However, although newspapers like Akşam, Takvim, and Yeni Şafak, as well as TGRT Haber and other pro-government news sites, reported the prosecutor's note almost sentence by sentence, there was never any mention of the "prosecutor's information note." It was as if their reporters had worked, researched, and learned the information themselves. This was the first deficiency and the first error in these reports.

The second error was presenting the prosecutor's accusations as verified, or even further, as finalized judicial decisions. Yet, to quote the Declaration of Rights and Responsibilities of Journalists in Turkey, a journalist "does not declare anyone guilty unless finalized by a judicial decision," and "publishes information regarding allegations and defense during the judicial process in a fair and balanced manner."

In the pro-government media, these texts based on the prosecutor's information note reduce journalism to the role of a tool, or even a "loudspeaker," for the prosecutor's office. What happened during the Ergenekon and Balyoz trial periods is repeating itself. Back then, too, prosecutors and police chiefs would send information notes, and sometimes even ready-to-publish news texts, to journalists...

YENİ ŞAFAK'S INCIDENTS

Yeni Şafak's headline, "Money suitcases on the 21st floor," contained the confessions of businessman Ahmet Çiçek, one of those arrested in the IBB operation. Most interestingly, Ahmet Çiçek claimed that advertiser Murat Kapki had given him "7 iPhone 16 Pro Max mobile phones" and that he "guessed these phones were among those distributed to CHP delegates at the congress."

Subsequently, the IBB's social media account responded, pointing out that the iPhone 16 Pro Max model mobile phones were released to the market approximately one year after the CHP Congress held in 2023.

However, Burak Doğan, who had his byline on the story, instead of issuing a correction or adding an explanation, mocked the IBB and those supporting it by saying, "They think they can create a perception." He wrote that Ahmet Çiçek "not only described the phones but also the system, and provided the receipts for the fake invoices he issued." Yes, but that does not eliminate the fact that this phone information was fabricated.

In Yeni Şafak's "Scheme of the last wave" story, which branded İmamoğlu as an "organization leader," there was also a photo error. In the "organization scheme" stated to have been "created by the Provincial Gendarmerie Command," the photos of individuals named Engin Gönül and Ahmet Rıdvan Murat were identical. Furthermore, Murat Ongun was listed as the owner of Medya A.Ş. However, Medya A.Ş. is an IBB company. Burak Doğan wrote this story as well, and despite the backlash, this error was not corrected, nor was any explanation provided.

Burak Doğan is a reporter who does not possess journalistic objectivity and takes sides in the news he writes. His social media account is full of examples of this attitude. He uses expressions like "One of our best readers" and "continue the game" for CHP Chairman Özgür Özel; he addresses screenwriter Ali Aydın by saying, "Has fear gripped the mountains, Aliiii?" He can call artist Hande Yener a "provocateur."

Setting aside the fact that Yeni Şafak and its reporter Burak Doğan did not feel the need to correct the "iPhone 16 Pro Max" error despite so many objections, Takvim and Türkiye newspapers continued the same error in their printed editions the following day. As if it hadn't been revealed that this phone was released a year after the congress, they printed Yeni Şafak's story exactly as is, without adding the slightest note!

When done knowingly, this is no longer an error; it becomes disinformation—to use a term the Directorate of Communications is very fond of.

NEITHER CORRECTION NOR APOLOGY

In the Akşam newspaper's headline, "İmamoğlu Medyası A.Ş." (İmamoğlu Media Inc.), it was alleged that certain opposition journalists frequently met with IBB Press Advisor Murat Ongun and his assistant Emrah Bağdatlı and received money.

The story had a language that accused, judged, and passed sentence. All sentences ended with definitive expressions such as "new information has emerged," "it has been determined," and "it drew attention."

Soner Yalçın's name was also included, but it was removed from the story on the webpage. Journalists Nevşin Mengü, Barış Pehlivan, Yavuz Oğhan, Ruşen Çakır, and İsmail Saymaz, who refuted the story and declared that they did not receive money and did not know Bağdatlı, filed criminal complaints.

Barış Pehlivan and Bahar Feyzan also produced a list of where they were on the days they were alleged to have met with Ongun and Bağdatlı. Apparently, the meeting allegations in Akşam were based on some witness statements and base station data. But the fact that two people's mobile phones signal from the same base station does not mean they met.

However, Akşam remained silent in the face of the concrete information that emerged, the journalists' statements, and the criminal complaints. It neither published a single line about the refutations made nor offered an apology.

Even Akşam newspaper Editor-in-Chief Mustafa Kartoğlu, to whom Ruşen Çakır said, "I do not forgive you," did not make a sound. He didn't even defend his newspaper's story...

It caught my attention; for some reason, Kartoğlu hasn't written a single column since May 10th...

PREJUDICED JOURNALISM

Azime Işık, who was tried on the allegation of acting as a lookout during the attack on "Mavi Çarşı," was acquitted after exactly 26 years; she was released from prison.

To be honest, while reading the news, I got stuck on a person spending 26 years in prison for no reason. She experienced a great injustice. Moreover, the court decided to pay 30 thousand TL in compensation for 26 years. This amount is not even two minimum wages... If this were in the USA, she would have received millions of dollars.

However, on social media, they reacted not to the injustice done to Azime Işık, her 26 years in prison, or the low amount of compensation, but to her release. The news site Yeniçağ also picked this up and reported it as, "Mavi Çarşı massacre perpetrator released! She had massacred 13 people." Other sites also published stories such as "Terrorist villain Azime Işık, who burned 13 people alive, released by Constitutional Court decision (Haber Vitrini), PKK terrorist Azime Işık acquitted after 26 years (Kanal46)."

Yet, Azime Işık, who was accused of acting as a lookout in the attack, was tried together with the actual perpetrators of the attack, individuals named Engin Atabey, Abdullah Günay, and Metin Yamalak. The court gave those individuals aggravated life sentences, and Azime Işık a life sentence.

But the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), to which Azime Işık applied, ruled that the "right to a fair trial had been violated"; the Istanbul 11th High Criminal Court also decided on her acquittal in the retrial on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of her guilt.

Continuing to refer to a person whom the court has acquitted as a "terrorist" and "villain" does not fit journalism. If you have documents or information that this woman is a PKK member and that she participated in that attack, then present it. But if there is no evidence to the contrary, you cannot write news with prejudices; you cannot show a person cleared by the court as guilty. This is bad journalism.

A journalist should never lose their human concerns and should listen to the voice of their conscience...

"MINI" SKIRT OBSESSED JOURNALISM

Actually, the shooting incident had nothing to do with a "mini skirt." It wasn't the fact that the hitman, who shot up the workplace and car of a businessman in Istanbul who refused to pay protection money, changed his clothes and wore a "mini skirt" after the attack that led to his capture.

The attacker, who was wearing a tracksuit during the attack, entered a building while fleeing, put on a skirt, and came out. The police caught him not because of his mini skirt, but because the shoes on his feet were the same. Indeed, Hürriyet and Takvim reported that "the hitman's shoes gave her away."

However, digital media embellished this event as "Mini-skirted hitman." Then Takvim and Ekol TV published "Entered in a tracksuit, came out in a mini skirt," Milliyet "Understood to be a woman when she wore a mini skirt," Halk TV "Rained bullets and fled in a mini skirt," and Nefes "Mini-skirted hitman" stories.

Yet, in the images included in the news, it was seen that the female attacker had a skirt on, but it wasn't even fully clear that it was a "mini." Furthermore, even if the skirt were "mini," it was not an element of the news; therefore, it should not have been put in the headline.

But when the subject is a woman, the discrimination and sexist perspective of editors immediately reveal themselves. While trying to write a catchy headline, journalism that is wrong and exploits the female body is laid bare. We still haven't been able to get rid of these stories prepared with an obsessed male mindset...

In a single sentence:

Akşam, Hürriyet, Sabah, and Yeni Şafak did not report that Ünsal Ban, the former rector of THK University, was caught on charges of manipulative movements in Borsa Istanbul; Milliyet did not write that Ban was the former husband of AKP member Zehra Taşkesenlioğlu.

halktv.com.tr deceived its readers by writing about the bonus at Çayırova Municipality with the headline "Eid al-Adha bonus became 12 thousand 198 liras," as if it had been given to all retirees in Turkey.

Hürriyet used the DHA story as "Video of the studio shoot has emerged," but "video" had not yet been invented in July 1927; Atatürk's image could only have been filmed.

Yeni Şafak, in its story "Boycott products found the solution in TV series," did not mention that the series it criticized for breaking the boycott against Israel were broadcast on Kanal D and Show TV.

While Hürriyet was only campaigning against those who play "illegal virtual betting," Hürriyet columnist Fuat Bol wrote "Virtual gambling is ruining us" without making a distinction between legal and illegal.

In Karar's story "Blood-curdling abuse allegation," the victim child's name was not given, but the identities were exposed by publishing the names and clear photos of the aunt and mother.

Yeni Akit published the promotion of a construction company's new project on the front page as if it were news with the headline "Symphony in the heart of Istanbul."

Yeni Şafak columnist İsmail Kılıçarslan said on his program on Tvnet, "There is only one option left to do; to kill the Zionists one by one, to wipe them off the face of the earth."

On Sözcü's webpage, in the story "Went to the field for irrigation, experienced a disaster," the news of a person's death in an irrigation canal in Osmaniye and the Eid al-Adha holiday news were mixed up.

In the Türkiye newspaper's story "Answer to allegations from the Ministry," there was no information that this statement was made due to the news that "According to the UN, Turkey is the fifth country that sells the most goods to Israel."

Anadolu Agency did not include in its report the fact that during the meeting in Qatar, Treasury and Finance Minister Mehmet Şimşek was asked about the operation targeting İmamoğlu and the IBB, nor did it include the minister's response.

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