When politics takes precedence over journalism

The source of the allegation that the CHP, under the leadership of Özgür Özel, was paying money to certain journalists and making regular payments, was a social media post by Barış Yarkadaş:

 “…it is said that troll accounts disguised as news sites are receiving 300 thousand TL per month from the headquarters. 14 million per month to one TV station, 8 million to another. 4 million is being paid to one newspaper, and 2.5 million to another. The invoices will be out in the open sooner or later. 46 million TL per month has been allocated for these activities.” As expected, this post by Yarkadaş caught the attention of the pro-government media. The Ensonhaber website published the news, “Barış Yarkadaş announced: ‘Headquarters allocated money for ‘troll’ accounts”, Beyaz Gazete “How much money did the CHP pay to troll accounts?”, and even Milli Gazete published the news “Striking claim from Barış Yarkadaş: ‘46 million TL per month to troll accounts and the media!”

Naturally, Yeni Akit also got involved; it reported, “The nightingales of Saraçhane are singing for money; the yellow envelopes of the funded ones have been opened.” In the news report where Barış Yarkadaş’s post was quoted, the names of 20 journalists from the opposition media, as well as Cumhuriyet, Halk TV, Sözcü, and some news sites, were also listed. Some figures like Fuat Uğur and Zekeriya Say also shared this, spreading the claim.

All hell broke loose, of course. The journalists and media organizations alleged to have received money from the CHP denied this accusation one after another. They announced that they would file lawsuits against Yeni Akit. They demanded that the new CHP administration “explain whether payments were made to the media and journalists.” 

In fact, the CHP’s financial relationship with the opposition media had come to the agenda before. The Constitutional Court’s 2009 financial audit report stated that the CHP had paid a total of 2 million 233 thousand liras to Halk TV that year as a “live broadcast fee.” Furthermore, in 2023, before the 38th party congress, Eren Erdem, a Deputy Chairman of the Kılıçdaroğlu administration, announced that they had canceled their broadcasting agreement with Halk TV. 

At that time, while I was criticizing the CHP’s “agreement for advertising, broadcasting campaign videos, and live broadcasting of group and press meetings” with Halk TV from an ethical perspective, I also wrote that they had similar agreements with 5 TV channels, 3 radio stations, and 18 newspapers.

Whether these agreements from the Kılıçdaroğlu era continued during the Özgür Özel era, and if so, what kind of agreements were made, should be explained one by one. However, making such claims without evidence that individual payments were made to journalists is unfair.

It is also not fair to discuss these without mentioning the AKP-run municipalities and public banks financing the pro-AKP media and the advertising embargo applied to the opposition media.

Moreover, Yeni Akit’s basis for accusing journalists consists only of “it is stated” and “it has been learned.” This shows that they do not have sufficient evidence. Despite this, the headline they used and the tone of the news are, let alone journalistic principles, morally problematic behavior. 

Barış Yarkadaş also writes in his post using phrases like “…is receiving”, “…is being paid”, “…has been allocated”. This is an account based on hearsay, not documents. Indeed, he himself states that he does not have documents by saying, “The invoices will be out in the open sooner or later.” 

A journalist should not cast suspicion on anyone, let alone their colleagues, without relying on concrete information and documents. However, we must discuss one more issue. Is Barış Yarkadaş a journalist? 

Barış Yarkadaş’s politician identity has taken precedence over his journalism. There is no journalistic objectivity in his screen appearances and posts. As seen at the rally in front of the CHP Headquarters, he is also a party to the infighting within the party, and an active party at that. Of course, that is his own business, but presenting him as a journalist on screen and using journalism as a tool is wrong…

The creativity of being able to turn a mistake into “good news”!

The spot for the Türkiye newspaper’s news titled “Behind the scenes of the Bilgi University decision: Legislation closed it, the complex opened it” was exactly as follows:

“It was not a closure, but a legal process was followed. Criticisms of ‘it was closed and opened in three days’ are baseless. Bound authority and discretionary authority are being confused. 22 thousand students and staff breathed a sigh of relief.”

The content of the news reports by Akşam, “Good news for 22 thousand students from ‘Bilgi’”, Hürriyet, “The report that reopened Bilgi”, and Yeni Şafak, “Procedure was applied at Bilgi” were the same. 

However, these news reports did not contain information about what happened during the period between Bilgi University being closed on May 21 with the signature of President Tayyip Erdoğan and the first decision being canceled on May 24, leading to the university being reopened.

In the initial news reports, let alone that it was temporary, even the reason for the closure was unclear; there was no information about the content of the decision. Therefore, on the morning of May 22, no one knew that “the closure was due to procedure and the university would reopen three days later”!

That is why the university’s students and faculty members started a resistance with the demand that the decision be canceled. The police forcibly removed the students from the campus by beating them with batons and spraying pepper gas. The rectorate, trying to calm the protests, instead of making a statement saying, “Don’t worry, this decision is for three days,” locked the gates of the Santral Istanbul Campus and announced that the entry of food supplies would also be blocked!

While the protests were continuing, even Yusuf Kaplan from the AKP community opposed the closure, saying, “So much effort, so much experience could have been protected by changing hands,” and asked for the decision to be reviewed. 

President Erdoğan’s second decision came after all of this; moreover, he did not make a new decision, he repealed his first decision. You ignore the students’ protest and the detention of a student who said “Our resistance paid off,” and then you present the reversal of a mistake as “good news”! It is very creative indeed, but it is not journalism…

Melih Altınok did not see his own newspaper

In my article titled “The second judicial intervention in politics,” while giving examples emphasizing that pro-government writers were happy with the absolute nullity decision, I said, “Melih Altınok interpreted the decision as a development in favor of the CHP by writing ‘A great cleanup is starting in the CHP’.”

Melih Altınok responded to me with an article titled “I wasn’t happy, but what will happen to this anxiety of yours, Mr. Faruk?”. In his article, he stated that there was no such expression as I conveyed; then he made evaluations and accusations about me.

It seems Melih Altınok does not read his own newspaper. Because on May 23, on the front page of Sabah, moreover, above his own signature and photo next to the headline, it was written “A great cleanup is starting in the CHP”.  

Yes, the headline on the inside page was not this, but when the newspaper’s managers read Melih Altınok’s article, they reached such a conclusion and deemed this headline appropriate. I also wrote that sentence based on that headline and spot. The person Melih Altınok should really object to is not me, but his newspaper.

Still, he says he was not “happy” with the developments in the CHP; if he thinks I conveyed it wrongly, he could have written to me and requested a correction. Instead of that, it was unfair for him to write a long article and harp on about “anxiety,” “profiling,” and “partisanship.” My articles are open to seeing eyes, they stand in the square, and which side I am on can be easily seen from there.

Nuray Başaran’s backstage gossip 

Nuray Başaran said in a program, “Namık Tan went to the US Ambassador to Ankara, Tom Barrack, after the absolute nullity decision and asked for help.”

Namık Tan also objected, explaining that he was under observation at home due to an eye operation he underwent on May 22; he said, “I didn’t even come side-by-side with Barrack”; he condemned Başaran. 

As Hilmi Hacaloğlu, who referred the matter to me, also emphasized, it is wrong for Başaran to voice such an allegation without consulting Tan. Since she did not even see the need to verify it from its source, it is expected that she has clear evidence in hand.

However, since Başaran has not disclosed such evidence so far and has not been able to defend what she said, what she needs to do now is to correct her words and apologize. But she had previously said that mobile phones were distributed to all delegates at the CHP congress, and that was not verified either. Despite this, she did not apologize or withdraw her claim. 

When that happens, Başaran’s “backstage gossip” goes far beyond the boundaries of journalism.

News that tries to scare 

When I turned on NTV, the presenter was almost screaming. She was telling it with excitement as if a great disaster had occurred.  I stopped and watched with curiosity. 

It turned out there was an earthquake in Malatya, she was talking about that. But there was no situation that required her to be that anxious. It was a 5.6 magnitude earthquake; there was no destruction in the region, nor were there any deaths or injuries. In a country of earthquakes like Turkey, describing a 5.6 magnitude earthquake like this was very exaggerated.

It was not just NTV; the earthquake on May 20 was reported in news sites and newspapers like most news channels with headlines such as “5.6 panic in Malatya” (Karar), “5.6 fear in the earthquake zone” (Türkiye), and “Scary earthquake in Malatya” (Memurlar.net).

Unfortunately, “Scary earthquake” headlines are a classic of our media. This headline is always used regardless of the magnitude or consequences of the earthquake. Indeed, the 4.0 magnitude earthquake in Malatya on May 24 was also announced with the headlines “Scary earthquake in Malatya: It was also felt in surrounding provinces” (Haber7) and “Scary earthquake of 4.0 magnitude in Malatya” (Milliyet). 

After the 4.9 magnitude earthquake that occurred in Adana on May 24, Hürriyet published the news “4.9 magnitude earthquake scared in Adana”, and Akşam published “4.9 magnitude fear in Adana” (Akşam).

There was no atmosphere of panic or fear in the cities where the earthquakes occurred.  Such being the case, making news of fear and anxiety and spreading fear is wrong. It revives the trauma left behind by major earthquake disasters. Scaring people about earthquakes cannot be a method of raising awareness about earthquakes.

In a single sentence:

•In Akşam’s news “The pet food lobby has set its sights on the sacrificial animal,” it was stated that there was a “great reaction” to the call to buy food for street animals, but there was no mention of who showed the reaction. 

•The primitive and discriminatory definition of “girl issue” in the news “Girl issue ended in bloodshed,” which was reported by DHA and İHA and used by Hürriyet, Karar, and Nefes, did not explain the reason for the murder.

•CNN Türk presented the medical doctor Oytun Erbaş, whose words “Corona does not affect the Turkish race” were the subject of ridicule, commenting on the developments in the CHP as a “Scientific CHP analysis.” 

•Sabah reported the Constitutional Court’s acceptance that the examination of a convict while handcuffed is “incompatible with human dignity” as a “controversial decision.”

•Gazete Pencere’s news “Open call from Murat Karayalçın to Kılıçdaroğlu” was taken from Oksijen but was not cited as a source. 

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