The inside story of the crisis at Halk TV

That evening, when Barış Pehlivan saw the interview conducted with Rasim Ozan Kütahyalı, he was surprised, and he was also saddened that such a name was being broadcast under the Halk TV logo with exaggerated praise. 

He immediately informed Barış Terkoğlu; Terkoğlu sent the link to the interview to the channel's owner, Cafer Mahiroğlu, and then called him. Mahiroğlu stated that he had just learned about the interview and replied that he would have it removed from the broadcast immediately. After hanging up, Terkoğlu relayed the response he received to Pehlivan and then went on air. 

Mahiroğlu, who was driving at the time, pulled his vehicle over, called the relevant manager at the channel, and told them to remove the video. However, 22 minutes had already passed; seeing that the interview had not been removed, Pehlivan thought there was no need to wait any longer and posted a critique of the interview. A few minutes later, when Mahiroğlu saw Pehlivan's post, he became angry, called the channel again, and gave the instruction, 'Do not remove it from the broadcast.'  

In the post that angered Mahiroğlu, Pehlivan pointed out that the reporter who conducted the interview did not know Kütahyalı, expressing the view: 'This is very sad. Kütahyalı is one of the media pillars of the rot in Turkey today. Giving someone like this a 'wise' role on the issue of the Kurdish opening is a huge mistake.' He concluded his criticism by saying, 'Halk TV is a source of pride for this land. This was an interview that did not befit this accumulation and effort.' 

After coming off the air, Terkoğlu retweeted Pehlivan's post; subsequently, Timur Soykan, Murat Ağırel, and Şule Aydın also offered their support, and the reactions to the interview grew rapidly.

Let me state immediately that conducting an interview with Kütahyalı is an editorial choice; it can be done. The issue, as Pehlivan also emphasized, is how it was done. Presenting Kütahyalı as an expert on the Imralı process without ever mentioning his past in the media, and restoring his reputation with praise, was wrong. 

Undoubtedly, every journalist has the right to object to a broadcast at the institution where they work. But an objection should first be voiced within the institution. It would have been more appropriate for Pehlivan to have made an effort to have that interview removed before expressing his reaction publicly.

What escalated the crisis was that, despite all the reactions, the interview was not removed from the broadcast even the next morning. The first decision to leave came from Serpil Yılmaz, who said, 'Halk TV has fallen far from the point where I want to be: with Rasim Ozan Kütahyalı.'  

From the morning hours, Mahiroğlu began pressuring the team to appear on the program "Kayda Geçsin" to respond to the criticisms. Şule Aydın and the team members opposed this, arguing that it would harm Halk TV. They suggested that the editor-in-chief or the relevant editor should appear instead of Mahiroğlu. Mahiroğlu rejected these suggestions, stating that if he did not appear, the program would not go on air. 

Thus, the situation reached a breaking point, but the team continued to wait to go on air. They even kept their guests waiting. However, Mahiroğlu escalated the tension to a new level by posting a harsh response on social media in the evening.

 Starting his statement by saying, "A campaign has been launched against me and the channel by a group of Halk TV programmers on social media," Mahiroğlu described the interview with Kütahyalı as a "traffic accident." Acting like an editor-in-chief, Mahiroğlu said, "I was not aware that the interview was being conducted. If I had known, I would not have approved it," and complained that Pehlivan had not called him before the post. He lamented that his request to use his "right of reply" had not been accepted.

When it became impossible to proceed with their program without Mahiroğlu's participation, the "Kayda Geçsin" team and Terkoğlu decided to leave. Minutes after Şule Aydın announced, "We have parted ways with Halk TV," Mahiroğlu connected to the news program. Ece Üner eased the situation for Mahiroğlu at the start by saying, "This is probably a first in Turkish history; it is an interesting development for a person to want to join their own television station to use their right of reply and be rejected." 

Like Ece Üner, Cafer Mahiroğlu is also mistaken. The "right of reply" is the right of a subject to express their opposing view in the same medium regarding a broadcast. However, there was no broadcast here, only social media posts. Mahiroğlu had already responded by making a post himself. 

 The real problem is that the subject of criticism regarding a broadcast is not the owner of the channel, but the executives responsible for the broadcast. Due to "editorial independence," the channel owner cannot interfere with the broadcast. However, with his post, his insistence on joining the program, and his speech on the news bulletin, Mahiroğlu announced that Halk TV's broadcasts were not independent of him, thereby violating editorial independence. 

Mahiroğlu later had the interview removed from the broadcast, but it was too late. Kütahyalı had already published the entire interview on the site where he hosts his program. The headline reflected Kütahyalı's joy over the events: "ROK collapsed Halk TV from the inside."

Reader awareness against the Google embargo

Google's algorithm changes have unfortunately claimed their first victim. Gazete Duvar, described in Editor-in-Chief Barış Avşar's farewell piece as a platform that was "verified, properly written, enriched with distinct details, labeling no one, not carrying water to the mill of 'partisanship,' protecting the oppressed and the wronged, and not marginalizing anyone," has shut down. We have lost one of the good journalism outlets that "did not sacrifice the effort to seek the truth to the speed of the internet." We have diminished once again.

It is common knowledge that independent and critical media organizations face political pressure and economic difficulties. When Google's "algorithm change"—the reasons, motives, and methods of which remain hidden—was added to this in recent months, the visitor traffic these news sites received via Google suddenly dropped by as much as 90 percent. Google, which earns billions thanks to the content produced by the media without paying royalties, has also completely wiped out the advertising revenues of these sites. 

Gazete Duvar, which had low direct advertising revenue and no subscription income, could no longer withstand Google's embargo. I fear this embargo will claim other victims; technology giants will become the primary determinants of how media reaches readers and viewers, hindering media freedom and the public's right to access information. 

But as expected, the political establishment is indifferent to this situation. Minister of Transport Abdülkadir Uraloğlu ignores the dilemma independent media has fallen into, contenting himself with saying, "We must protect mainstream media. If media organizations file lawsuits, we will support them." 

The open letter titled "We protest Google's destructive embargo," published collectively by news sites Artı Gerçek, BirGün, Diken, Ekonomim, Gazete Pencere, ilketv.com.tr, Kısa Dalga, Medyascope, and T24, was the first step against this tech giant. The letter, which calls for "state institutions to implement regulations that will strengthen local media," also invites companies to direct their advertising budgets straight to media organizations.

I also believe, as emphasized in the letter, that the greatest power to overcome Google's embargo and its algorithmic tricks lies with the readers. They can keep independent and critical journalism alive by "accessing news on the internet not through Google, but by visiting the websites they read directly," and by subscribing or donating. 

As journalists, it is our duty to raise awareness among readers about the Google embargo and to mobilize them... 

Inciting chaos and creating public panic

  In response to my article titled “The ‘Chaos Hunter’ reporter of Türkiye newspaper,” Türkiye newspaper Editor-in-Chief Yücel Koç replied with: “Oh, ombudsman! Did you see the chaos?”

“...he published this article at such a bad time that there was no need for us to even respond. Because one of the ‘chaos’ reports he criticized was about the Baathist Assad remnants in Syria’s Latakia-Tartus region preparing for a new Sunni massacre and chaos with Iran’s support.”

No, this response from Yücel Koç is also incorrect. He has unnecessarily gotten excited over events in Latakia and its surroundings, where the Nusayris live in Syria. 

First of all, what I criticized was that all 10 of Yılmaz Bilgen’s “Chaos Gang” and “Chaos Plan” reports were filled with the fallacy that chaos would erupt in Turkey, not in Syria. For example, the latest “Chaos plan” report on February 23 began with “The forces that went into standby mode after Gezi and the failed July 15 coup attempt have mobilized again” and extended to a “chaos plan to be supported by bomb attacks and assassinations targeting critical figures!” 

Secondly, the report dated December 18, 2024, titled “Fear of massacre in Latakia,” which Yücel Koç cited as an example to prove their point, was not among the “Chaos gang” and “Chaos plan” reports I criticized! Because that report was one of the rare ones where Yılmaz Bilgen did not use the word “chaos.” Moreover, in that report, Yılmaz Bilgen wrote that “there is fear that pro-regime terrorists will carry out a Sunni massacre.” 

However, the news coming from the Latakia region indicates that, contrary to what Yılmaz Bilgen wrote at the time, it was civilian Nusayris who were massacred following an attack by forces remaining from the Assad regime, not Sunnis. In fact, even Yılmaz Bilgen admitted on March 11 that civilian Nusayris were killed, stating, “The Nusayri people said that the rebels mercilessly massacred 400 Nusayris who opposed them.” 

Unfortunately, while responding to my criticisms, the Türkiye newspaper sank deeper into the “chaos” quagmire instead of correcting its mistake. Furthermore, leaning on President Erdoğan’s speech, they declared the CHP the “spokesperson for the chaos plan” in their reports titled “What we have been warning about for months has emerged one by one” and “Harsh reaction from Erdoğan.”

Yet, I only wanted to warn that inciting “chaos” with such reports could lead the “public to fear and panic.” Not to mention that they also make the state appear helpless (!)...

In a single sentence:

•  Hürriyet columnist Ahmet Hakan praised a member of parliament as someone who "sings like a near-professional," but the name of the MP, Cantürk Alagöz, was missing from his column; the name was omitted.

•  Journalist Emrullah Erdinç shared a report by Kaan Göktaş from Serbestiyet titled "The major who ordered meatballs and bread for Adnan Oktar has been dismissed" without citing the source; Halk TV and Yeniçağ then quoted the story, citing Erdinç as their source.

•  Yeni Şafak, which prepares special pages, published "covert advertising" for the AKP-run Haliliye Municipality, while Akşam did the same for the AKP-run Ordu Metropolitan Municipality.

•  The Anadolu Agency report titled 'Social Security Institution (SGK) begins tracking fraudulent divorces' was published by many outlets, including AHaber, Haber7, and Cumhuriyet, without citing the source.

•  In the news reports by Akşam and Sabah titled 'New regulation for electric vehicle loans,' the information that the regulation, which only covers TOGG, came after TOGG closed the year with a loss, was missing.   

•  Milliyet announced the death in prison of Hasan Heybetli, a well-known figure in the underworld convicted of murder and the former husband of artist Muazzez Abacı, under the headline 'Sad news'. 

•  During the 'Odak Noktası' program on Ülke TV, while discussing the death of landscape architect Ece Gürel, they also sought an answer to the question, 'How many witches are there in Turkey?'

•  Pro-government media did not report on President Erdoğan having a 92-year-old man kiss his hand.

•  Çimsa, one of the companies under Sabancı Holding, invited journalists from Akşam, Ekonomim, and Hürriyet to Ireland to tour its newly acquired facility. 

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