The Merdan Yanardağ-Zülal Kalkandelen polemic: Truths and falsehoods

In fact, both Tele1 Editor-in-Chief Merdan Yanardağ and Cumhuriyet columnist Zülal Kalkandelen had signed the campaign titled "We will not allow our country to tumble off the cliff," which was prepared under the leadership of the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP).

However, they clashed after Yanardağ said in an interview with Ruşen Çakır on Medyascope, "I would not have signed it if it were a campaign against the process. I am not directly against the process. I have certain criticisms of the process. There are those among the signatories who are directly against the process."

Kalkandelen reacted to these remarks by Yanardağ, who was supporting the process, by saying, "One wonders why Yanardağ participated in the signature campaign initiated by the TKP. I and many others thought the signature campaign was about the process. I guess Yanardağ didn't understand." Kalkandelen added, "Whereas I and many others thought the signature campaign was about the process."

CONTROVERSIAL REMARKS

In her column in Cumhuriyet titled "No to perception manipulation," Kalkandelen also opposed Yanardağ's assessment: "We had a survey conducted; nearly 80 percent of CHP voters look positively at this process and support it. It is not as thought. That is, there is a 6 percent segment that is categorically opposed from the front. Because people are not against peace and democratization in principle."

Kalkandelen stated, "We do not know which survey Yanardağ is referring to; he needs to provide its credentials, but there is a survey there that reveals the exact opposite of what he said." Kalkandelen pointed out that the survey by the Gündemar company, which Yanardağ was referring to, concluded that "only 11 percent of CHP voters support the process."

Yanardağ responded to Kalkandelen with an article titled "The Kurdish issue and nationalist pollution" on the Tele1 website. Arguing that Kalkandelen 'does not know how to read a survey,' Yanardağ said, "11 percent (of those surveyed) support the process, while approximately 80 percent indicate not that they are against a solution, but that they do not believe the newly initiated 'new opening process' and the established commission will solve the problem." In fact, while elaborating on his sentences from the interview, he was changing and correcting his expression there.

POLEMIC CONTINUED ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Subsequently, the polemic between Yanardağ and Kalkandelen continued on social media with harsh expressions. However, I will not delve into the accusations and assessments that both writers directed at each other. Those are their personal opinions.

What is important from a journalistic perspective is the survey that is the source of the debate and the data within it. Therefore, to understand the issue, I looked at the survey conducted by Gündemar on behalf of Tele1 between July 20-26, covering 2,256 people in 60 provinces across Turkey. To the question, "Do you believe that the new political and social opening launched under the name 'Terror-free Turkey' will end terrorism in Turkey?", 11 percent of the CHP members who participated in the survey answered "Yes," 78 percent answered "No," and 11 percent had no opinion.

There is no question in the survey regarding the commission in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM), as the commission had not yet been established. The call by Öcalan, the symbolic burning of weapons by the PKK, and the release of Öcalan were asked. The percentage of CHP members who answered "Yes" to those questions also did not exceed 10 percent.

THE SURVEY MEASURED EXPECTATION, NOT SUPPORT

These results do not confirm Yanardağ's words in the interview: "Nearly 80 percent of CHP voters look positively at this process and support it. That is, there is a 6 percent segment that is categorically opposed from the front." Contrary to what he said, 78 percent of CHP members gave negative answers to the questions...

Kalkandelen also said, "11 percent of CHP voters support the process" while criticizing Yanardağ, but it would have been more accurate to say that only 11 percent of CHP voters "look positively" at the process or "believe in the success of the process."

Because the survey sought answers to whether people "believe the opening will end terrorism"; it measured "expectation of success," not "support for the process." Therefore, it cannot be said that those who answered "Yes" support the process, and those who answered "No" are against the process.

THE SURVEY COMPANY'S MISTAKE

Unfortunately, Gündemar did not ask clear questions regarding support for the process; moreover, it created a table for "Expectation of success of the process" for Turkey in general and "Support rates according to party voters" for the distribution among parties, based on the answers given to the same question as if "support" and "expectation" were measured together. By confusing expectation with support, Gündemar made the first mistake.

However, defending peace and looking at the process cannot be equated. Opinions and perceptions form the expectation regarding the process, while support for peace and democracy is entirely related to personal views and personal truths.

THE DRAWBACKS OF JOINT DECLARATIONS

Furthermore, I believe that journalists should avoid signing joint declarations, especially those with political content.

Signing joint texts always creates ethical problems and perception issues. A journalist, who already has the ability to explain their own views with their pen in hand, becomes trapped in the narrative and identity of other names, organizations, and entities, and is framed in a different way.

Moreover, all perceptions, whether positive or negative, regarding the people who sign also fall on the journalist. What happened regarding the TKP's declaration is a new example of these drawbacks...