The ICRYPEX case and the damage of sponsorships to journalists

The first error in the reports regarding the arrest of Gökalp İçer, owner of the crypto exchange ICRYPEX, and the subsequent investigation, was the claim that the lawyer Göksu Çelebi, with whom he had allegedly used drugs, had died.

Cumhuriyet's website published a report on July 28 stating, "The young woman who had been in a coma for days has lost her life," and Akşam followed on July 29 with the headline, "The young lawyer in a coma has died." A day later, Sabah columnist Dilek Güngör wrote, "In the statement made by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, it was stated that Gökçe Çelebi lost her life due to drug use." The same phrasing was also used by Gazete Oksijen and Independent Türkçe.

In reality, the Prosecutor's Office statement did not say that Çelebi had "lost her life"; the statement that Gökalp İçer had been arrested for "supplying drugs or stimulants and attempted murder with probable intent against a woman" was likely misinterpreted. However, Sabah did not settle for the statement alone; it conducted research and reported that "Göksu is in a life-or-death struggle."

The second error in these reports concerned ICRYPEX's sponsorships. Pro-government media, led by Sabah, listed names such as Murat Ağırel, Şule Aydın, Timur Soykan, Barış Pehlivan, and Barış Terkoğlu—who make up 'Onlar TV'—as well as Fatih Altaylı, Emin Çapa, Murat Muratoğlu, Özlem Gürses, and Atilla Yeşilada as individuals sponsored by ICRYPEX. Mahmut Övür, who was the first to write about the investigation into Gökalp, also wrote, "Behind Fatih Altaylı and the 'Onlar' group, who act holier-than-thou, are ICRYPEX and its boss Gökalp İçer."

THEY STIGMATIZED THE OPPOSITION MEDIA 

Moreover, despite Şule Aydın's statement that, "They are not our sponsors. This company sponsored two or three programs. Are we to be held responsible for what the owner of a brand does in his private life?", Sabah wrote, "No sound from 'Onlar', who play the whistle for money." As expected, Akşam, Yeni Şafak, and Serbestiyet continued the same error instead of issuing a correction.

Fatih Altaylı, who is currently in custody, did not make a statement, but Cem Küçük had written months ago, on May 5, that ICRYPEX had withdrawn its sponsorship of him. In the same article, Cem Küçük also reported that he had asked Murat Ağırel and received the response: "The firm is not a sponsor; there were only two program logos. We did not receive a single penny from the firm. We don't even have a single sponsor right now."

It appears that money laundering and illegal betting investigations into ICRYPEX and Gökalp İçer had begun several months ago; the hospitalization of Göksu Çelebi, with whom he was associated, due to drug use, and the coverage initiated by Sabah, caused those investigations to accelerate.

The pro-government media targeted the opposition media through sponsorship relations, citing Gökalp İçer. Dilek Güngör humiliated the entire opposition media by saying, 'Gökalp İçer has made all the opposition his

'THEY ARE COMMITTING CHARACTER ASSASSINATION'

After Sabah published reports about ICRYPEX and Gökalp İçer for days, using photos of Şule Aydın, Murat Ağırel, Timur Soykan, Barış Pehlivan, and Barış Terkoğlu to accuse them of silence, Onlar TV did not remain silent. They responded to these reports in their program on August 31.

Murat Ağırel reiterated that they had addressed this issue in a previous program and that ICRYPEX was not their sponsor. He then said, 'They are not our sponsor. They were only a sponsor for a few of our broadcasts 3.5 months ago.' Şule Aydın added, 'They could have been our sponsor right now as well.' Barış Terkoğlu stated that 'a journalist cannot be identified by the advertisements and sponsorships they receive.' Ağırel summarized his points as follows:

'ICRYPEX has sponsored many other individuals and organizations. While there are hundreds of sponsorship relationships, they are targeting Onlar TV and Fatih Altaylı. ICRYPEX has advertised in Sabah many times and published sponsored news. Gökalp İçer has appeared on A Haber's broadcasts multiple times. Yet they expect an explanation from us. We are not on anyone's side. We are independent journalists.'

When Barış Terkoğlu described Sabah's reports as 'a hatchet job,' Timur Soykan also expressed his reaction with anger:

'We do this job at the risk of our lives. Those who practice journalism to hide the truth from the public, those who do not lift a finger regarding the scandals we uncover, are now trying to throw mud at us. This shameless, brazen mentality that never gets enough of filling their pockets and is sinking the country will try to throw mud not just at us, but at all the good journalists of this country!'

Şule Aydın, who said, 'They are committing character assassination,' concluded the segment by saying, 'There is not a single person at this table who cannot account for every penny. That is why we say, bring it on.'

ÖVÜR'S STRANGE IMPLICATIONS 

Despite these statements on TV, Sabah's publications did not slow down.  Sabah was published again with the headline, "Did the crypto baron destroy evidence?" The headline featured the byline, "Mahmut Övür does not let go of the scandal." Mahmut Övür was repeating the same accusations regarding the sponsorship and making strange implications:

"Wherever there is a politician or media figure carrying out the mission of collapsing the opposition's internal front, Gökalp İçer and the ICRYPEX company are inevitably behind them. It is clear that İçer is much more than an ordinary crypto market player. The Star of David on his arm, from the Israeli flag, is not just a tattoo, but a sign."

These sentences, with which Övür concluded his article, read like the first lines of a preparation for new conspiracy theories targeting the opposition media...

THE SHADOW OF SPONSORSHIP OVER JOURNALISM 

What Sabah and the pro-government media are doing is truly unfair and baseless defamation. They are trying to smear the entire opposition media over a finished, non-existent sponsorship. Moreover, they are doing this without receiving responses, without providing opposing views, and without asking questions.

However, this ICRYPEX incident is important in terms of showing how sponsorship relationships can bring burdens and problems to journalists. For years, I have been trying to draw attention to the drawbacks of journalists establishing financial relationships with companies through methods such as sponsorships, invited trips, and paid speaking engagements. Unfortunately, the ICRYPEX case has proven the warnings in my articles to be correct.

Of course, a journalist or media organization cannot be held responsible for the activities of a sponsoring company or its owner. But inevitably, the stain of that company's mistakes falls upon the journalist. Because when a journalist accepts a company as a sponsor, they become integrated with it in the eyes of their audience and followers, and a kind of bail relationship begins. Indeed, ICRYPEX and some similar crypto companies gained recognition through sponsorships to journalists; they created perceptions based on the credibility of those journalists.

For this reason, journalists should avoid sponsorship relationships as much as possible, and if they do enter into them, they must research that company very thoroughly and be very careful to protect editorial independence. Especially news reporters and those who produce news programs should not establish sponsorship relationships. Because conflicts of interest can inevitably arise, or as in the ICRYPEX incident, it can cast a shadow over journalism.

Fatih Portakal conducted a poll on X regarding journalists' sponsorship relationships; 41 percent said "they should research the sponsor," and 24.5 percent said "there should be no sponsors in news." I am of the same opinion. This care is necessary so that journalism does not suffer from the actions of others...