They couldn't ask Bahçeli 'Where were you?'

When MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli went to cast his vote on election day, there were bruises on his face and forehead; his arm was also in a sling. However, journalists could not ask why.

    One journalist asked an insignificant question like "Sir, where will you be following the election results from?" and that was it. Let alone asking the reason for the bruises, the reporters couldn't even say "Get well soon." After making a statement of a few sentences, Bahçeli walked away from them.

    The bruises on Bahçeli's face caught the attention of even those watching on screen, becoming the subject of short news reports. Following the reports, MHP Secretary General İsmet Büyükataman announced that Bahçeli had "had an accident at home before the party congress." This was reported in some news outlets as "The reason for the bruises on his face has been revealed."

    Yet, the reason hadn't really been revealed. Ataman had not explained how the home accident happened. Did he get dizzy when he got up for morning prayer, or did he trip over the carpet while trying to pick up the TV remote? Since Bahçeli wasn't asked either, that remained a mystery. 

     Moreover, the MHP congress was on March 17; when Bahçeli took the podium that day, his arm was in a sling, but there were no visible bruises on his face. The bruises on his face had been covered with foundation, photojournalists were not allowed to take close-ups, and close-up photos were distributed by the party. Those who asked about the sling were told he had "sprained his shoulder due to an awkward movement," and no mention was made of a fall. 

      There was one more question that should have been asked to Bahçeli on election day: "Why didn't you conduct an election campaign?" This question was also not asked to Bahçeli, or rather, could not be asked. 

    Yet, Bahçeli had not organized any election rallies -except for Mersin on January 28 and Manisa on February 4- and according to Oksijen newspaper, he had only made one written statement during the 14 days between the congress and the election. Before the congress, he had taken the podium for a parliamentary group speech on February 13 and held a press conference on February 29. In this case, the only reason for not appearing in public and not conducting an election campaign or rallies cannot be a "home accident"!

      However, such a media order has been established in Turkey that the reason cannot be asked of the chairman of a ruling coalition party who has not been seen for days and has not organized rallies. Except for the report in Günboyu newspaper titled "Bahçeli's injured state affected election turnout," it cannot even be brought to the agenda. If it were left to the MHP's newspaper Türkgün, even that couldn't be written; it would be mandatory for the entire media, like them, to photoshop the bruises on Bahçeli's face before publishing! 

      Political journalism is no longer based on informing the public, but on pleasing members of the government. There is also the risk of upsetting "Sir" by asking "Where were you before the election?" 

     CALL FOR SELF-CRITICISM FROM PRO-AKP WRITERS

  A sense of defeat also prevails among pro-AKP writers. Yeni Şafak writer Ali Saydam emphasized that President Erdoğan's election assessment also contained messages to the "media that adopts the AK Party's worldview," and that the media should also draw lessons regarding their own stance. Saydam argued that the media should also "review its own behavioral language and the way it handles events."

     Akşam newspaper writer Taceddin Kutay, perhaps having internalized his party to such an extent, wrote in his article titled "Will the AK Party be able to engage in self-criticism?" that "each of us, in our own channels, starting with ourselves first, must face ourselves and what we have done up to this day."

     Other pro-AKP writers besides Saydam and Kutay, who called for self-criticism, have also begun a deep search for the reasons for the defeat. They suddenly discovered that retirement pensions remained low, the cost of living, that the candidates were wrong, and that the AK Party had become disconnected from reality.

     Yet, as far as I could see before the election, a small number of names among pro-government writers, such as Cem Küçük, Ali Saydam, Mehmet Metiner, and İsmail Kılıçarslan, were mentioning the government's mistakes and shortcomings, even if only between the lines. 

      Now, except for Yeni Akit writer Ali İhsan Karahasanoğlu, who blames the voters by writing "A mental block in the electorate," almost all pro-government writers are constantly writing about the AK Party's shortcomings and mistakes. However, the common point of them all is that they never, ever see any fault in President Erdoğan. None of them dare to criticize Erdoğan. 

     The one who went the furthest was İstiklal newspaper writer Arzu Erdoğral. In her article titled "Why did the AK Party lose?" she wrote, "Isn't it a pity for all of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's efforts?"

    You would think Erdoğan had no say in the determination of candidates; you would think the government's economic actions were continuing without Erdoğan's knowledge or approval! When one is such a partisan, it is impossible for them to look at what is happening objectively or to perform an analysis.

        HOW WAS THE "DISEASE OF ARROGANCE" WEEDED OUT?

    Once upon a time, there was "backstage journalism" in this country. Even what happened in the Council of Ministers would definitely be reflected in political backstages, and parliamentary and political reporters would write about the details. 

     In recent years, "backstage reporting" has almost ended. Backstage news regarding the CHP and other opposition parties can be found, but AKP circles are extremely tight-lipped. Most of what is written as backstage news from the AKP are actually texts leaked from the party called "information notes." Don't be fooled by them being presented as "backstage news"; these are outright guided pieces...  

     The latest example is the news regarding the Central Executive Board meeting held after the election. According to reports in the pro-government media, Erdoğan had engaged in self-criticism while evaluating the election results. Although phrases like "It was learned," "it was reported," "according to sources" were used, the text sent from the AKP was actually used. The contribution of journalism was limited to shortening and adding headlines.

     However, according to newspapers like Akşam, Türkiye, and Yeni Şafak, Erdoğan had drawn attention to the "disease of arrogance" at the meeting, saying that "in order not to melt like ice under the sun, one must see the mistakes and pull oneself together." This section was not in newspapers like Hürriyet, Milliyet, and Sabah!

     It turns out that -according to what Murat Yetkin and Nuray Babacan conveyed- the first "information note" sent from the AKP to the media was later changed, and sentences like "disease of arrogance" and "ice under the sun" were removed in the second text. The most interesting part is that a portion of the pro-government media did not care about this "censorship" attempt regarding Erdoğan's words...

    THEY REMEMBERED PRESS FREEDOM

    I couldn't understand how Yeni Şafak found the nerve to publish a news story titled "Where is press freedom" the day after the local election. Yeni Şafak was reacting to its reporter not being allowed into the CHP Istanbul Provincial Headquarters, arguing that "the CHP is preventing press members from exercising their freedom to report."

      Of course, the Yeni Şafak reporter should not be prevented either. However, that same evening, no journalist from the opposition media, including the Now reporter, was allowed into the AKP Istanbul Provincial Headquarters building. Furthermore, the Presidency has been imposing accreditation barriers on the opposition media for years, and reporters from the opposition media are not allowed into any events.

      It is a complete double standard for Yeni Şafak, which does not object to the obstruction of the opposition media, to talk about "press freedom" when its own reporter is obstructed. If they sincerely defended press freedom, they would have opposed the accreditation of the opposition media. Where is that consistency?

    THOSE WHO TURNED JOURNALISM INTO FORTUNE-TELLING ALSO LOST

    Evrensel newspaper reminded us. Fulya Öztürk had brought astrologer Nuray Sayarı onto her program on CNNTürk on September 26 last year and asked about the "astrology of politics." She had received Sayarı's prediction for Istanbul and the elections.

    Sayarı, who said that the AKP would win the election in Istanbul, had said, "Ekrem İmamoğlu is losing and finishing in these elections. Mansur Yavaş will continue in Ankara." The local election results refuted the Istanbul part of Sayarı's prediction.

    The results proved the wrongness of bringing an astrologer onto a political program and asking about the election. In this case, respect for the audience requires an explanation and an apology. Of course, if they keep astrologers on entertainment programs from now on, they won't have turned journalism into fortune-telling. And maybe that way, they won't lose their ratings on election nights to Now TV and Sözcü TV.

     "DEEPFAKE" GAME ON JOURNALISTS

     Osman Müftüoğlu is also complaining about fake advertisements where his name and photo are used. He wrote in his column in Hürriyet, "Please do not believe these fraudsters."

    Ever since "artificial intelligence" programs emerged, it hasn't just been about using celebrities' photos in fake ads as before; advertising footage is created using the celebrities' own voices.

    One of the victims of the technology called "deepfake," which uses people's voices to make them say whatever it wants and matches it with other images, was Prof. Dr. Özgür Demirtaş. In the fake video, they had Demirtaş advertise a finance application. The voices or images of names like Defne Samyeli, Esra Erol, and Alper Altun were also used for advertising and fraud purposes.

    A fake news story titled "The secret that makes you rich from Cem Küçük" was produced by combining the photo of Türkiye newspaper writer Cem Küçük with the Hürriyet newspaper logo. Fatih Altaylı's photo was also placed on caps with the text "What happened to him after the cameras were turned off?" Although Altaylı complained about these images to both the prosecutor's office and social media platforms, he did not get any results. 

    Following the European Parliament's decision regarding artificial intelligence, a legal regulation needs to be made in Turkey as well. Media organizations must also urgently adopt principles regarding the use of artificial intelligence applications.

    In one sentence:

• Dipnot Tv, Haber3, Gazete Pencere, Karar, Milli Gazete, and Yeni Şafak used a photo of Kadir İnanır taken when he was discharged from Pamukkale University Hospital on December 12, 2021, as if it were taken when he left Ümraniye Training Hospital last week.
  
  
  

• In Milliyet's news about the world's richest people, the information that President Erdoğan's son-in-law Selçuk Bayraktar and his brother Haluk Bayraktar also entered Forbes' list was missing.

• Akşam, İHA, Sabah, Türkiye, and Yeni Akit, which published that Selçuk and Haluk Bayraktar entered the "world's richest" list, used a "sympathetic" news story two days later titled "12.2 billion contribution to the economy from Baykar." 

• While the Central Bank's annual inflation target is 36 percent, Yeni Şafak headlined the news reporting that the inflation rate for the first three months rose to 15.6 percent as "Inflation consistent with the target."

• The police subjected journalists following the protests against not giving the certificate of election to Abdullah Zeydan, who won the election in Van, to violence and detained seven journalists.

• Hürriyet hid the name of the private hospital accused in the DHA-sourced "Aesthetic nightmare" news story.

• Türkgün made a Turkish language error in its headline "Response to perception operations with figures" by confusing the words "rate" and "number" with the word "figures." 

• There was no signature on Yeni Şafak's commentary article titled "Look at the election results from this perspective too," which relates the local election to cinema.

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