Faruk Bildirici writes: Why should reporting on an expert witness be a crime?

Why should reporting on an expert witness be a crime?

When the threat of investigation arrived before Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu had even stepped down from the podium, it was natural for journalists to feel uneasy. In its statement, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office announced that an investigation had been launched into İmamoğlu; it then added, "Instructions have been given to the Istanbul Police Department to identify and initiate investigations into those who make such statements in the written and visual media." With the situation as it was, a dilemma arose over whether the expert witness's name could be published.

Newspapers such as Akşam, Cumhuriyet, Hürriyet, Korkusuz, Posta, Sabah, and Yeniçağ did not publish the expert's name. Gazete Pencere used the code "Satılmış B.", BirGün and Sözcü used "Mr. S.", while Karar and Yeni Akit used "S.B."

However, Evrensel, Milliyet, Nefes, Türkiye, and Yeni Şafak published the name openly. Under headlines such as "He targeted the expert witness" in Türkiye and "Threat to the expert witness after the prosecutor" in Yeni Şafak, they also reported Satılmış Büyükcanayakın's responses to İmamoğlu's accusations.

PRO-GOVERNMENT MEDIA PUBLISHED THE NAME

On the internet, dozens of news sites including ANKA, Artı Gerçek, Bianet, BirGün, Cumhuriyet, Diken, Evrensel, Euronews, Elips Haber, Haber Aktif, Gazete Duvar, Medyascope, Medyaradar, Nefes, Sol Haber, Sözcü, T24, VOA Türkçe, 24 Saat, Yeniçağ, and Yeni Şafak, as well as Mahmut Övür from Sabah, openly published the expert's name. While some sites later removed the name, BBC Türkçe, Gazete Oksijen, Gazete Pencere, and Odatv coded the name; Gerçek Gündem and Türkiye did not provide it at all. 12Punto initially published the name openly, then added a note below: "Editor's note: Due to the recent increase in judicial pressure on the media, the name of the expert witness pointed out by IMM Mayor İmamoğlu during his public press conference has been changed to S.B."

Yet, what is being reported here are the words spoken at a press conference by a political figure with significant weight on the political stage, such as İmamoğlu. Provided that distance is maintained from the accusations and a judgmental tone is not used in the reporting, there can be no harm in using the expert's name. However, if there were a danger of the expert being accused, targeted, or placed in a difficult position, not publishing their name would have been more appropriate in terms of journalistic ethical principles.

EXPERT WITNESSES ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY

Let us not forget that expert witnesses do not perform judicial duties; they are specialists whose opinions are sought in courts. Expert witnesses and the reports they prepare cannot be exempt from criticism. Criticizing them does not mean targeting them.

Unless there is a specific confidentiality order, expert reports, like court proceedings, are public. That is why the names of expert witnesses are included in news reports when their findings are covered.

In the news coverage of İmamoğlu's press conference, the name of the expert witness, Satılmış Büyükcanayakın, should have been mentioned—within the framework I have specified; the news should not have been left incomplete. The prosecutor's office's threat should not have been allowed to turn into self-censorship.

After all, if it is considered journalism for the pro-government Yeni Şafak to publish the expert's name and words, it cannot be a crime when the opposition and critical media do the same.

FATİH PORTAKAL'S MISTAKES

The Prosecutor's Office, which ordered an investigation into the media even during İmamoğlu's press conference, turned its focus to the opposition media as usual. The saddest part of the incident was that on the evening when Barış Pehlivan, Serhan Asker, and Seda Selek were detained, it was not this shocking development that occupied our minds, but rather Fatih Portakal's remarks on Sözcü TV; this diverted the focus of the reactions and dominated social media.

I could not remain silent that evening either. With my post, "When journalism is under attack, our duty as journalists is to defend our colleagues; to stand by them," I tried to remind everyone of the importance of solidarity. Our primary duty was to support our detained colleagues, show solidarity, and oppose the injustice. Fatih Portakal, however, prioritized criticism instead of taking ownership, offering support, and showing solidarity—and he did so with the wrong tone and at the wrong time.

His claim that it was wrong to broadcast the speech of a person who said, "...I do not want to appear on Halk TV or for it to be broadcast," was also incorrect. I listened to Barış Pehlivan's conversation with the expert witness Satılmış Büyükcanayakın. Barış Pehlivan was inviting him to a live broadcast on Halk TV, and Büyükcanayakın was declining. He did not say he did not want it to be broadcast. Nor did he cut the conversation short or end the call immediately...

This debate regarding journalism should not have been the topic of that evening. Because while we were discussing Fatih Portakal's words, on the other hand, Barış Pehlivan, Serhan Asker, and Seda Selek were being punished in advance by being detained overnight instead of being summoned for testimony, and kept at the police station until morning.

IT WAS JOURNALISTIC ACTIVITY

What was viewed as a "crime" was also journalistic activity. Barış Pehlivan had called the expert witness, whom an important political actor like İmamoğlu had directed accusations at, to ask for their response; then that conversation was broadcast. What could be a better example of journalistic activity than this?

When asked, Minister of Justice Yılmaz Tunç said, "No one is detained for journalistic activity." This is a completely invalid statement. In our country, we see that journalists are not only detained for their professional activities but are also thrown into prison.

Minister Tunç also added, "If you have a conversation with someone and publish that conversation without the other party's consent, the Turkish Penal Code defines this as a crime." By saying this, Minister Tunç, in his capacity as the President of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, has interfered with the judiciary, regardless of whether it is about publishing a phone conversation with an expert witness.

Similarly, President Erdoğan also interfered with the judicial process from the highest level with his words: "They want to engage in politics and journalism in a privileged space created outside the law, and run wild in this area as they please." And then they talk about how the judiciary is independent and so on...

Undoubtedly, lessons must be learned from this incident in the name of independent and critical journalism. According to the statements given to the prosecutor's office, Barış Pehlivan speaks with the expert witness; because the speakerphone is on, the Program Manager Kürşad Oğuz records it and sends it to Editor-in-Chief Suat Toktaş. Toktaş explains what happened next in his statement: "I asked Barış, 'Is there permission, will they file a lawsuit?' I am a 38-year veteran journalist, I am 56 years old, I bear the responsibility for the work I do. When Barış replied to me, 'Brother, we are journalists,' I thought it was within the scope of permission."

IT COULD HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED AS TEXT

Clearly, this was a broadcast decision made quickly within a few minutes. In the published audio recording, Barış Pehlivan introduces himself to the expert witness but does not state that he is recording the conversation, nor does he ask for permission to record. Because it was done without consent, the publication of the audio recording is problematic in terms of journalistic professional ethics.

Indeed, the Turkish Declaration of Rights and Responsibilities of Journalism states that "Documents, photographs, audio, or images obtained without the owner's permission can only be used if there is a direct public interest and it is firmly concluded that they cannot be obtained in any other way." This is a universal journalistic principle.

Undoubtedly, there was public interest in the expert witness's words, and therefore, it had news value. There was no obstacle to publishing it as a transcript; it could have been published that way. In any case, the expert witness, Satılmış Büyükcanayakın, was aware that he was speaking to a journalist, even if he did not know about the audio recording, and he answered the questions accordingly.

JOURNALISTIC REFLEX

I must also emphasize that there was not the slightest expression in Halk TV's broadcast regarding the audio recording that targeted the expert witness or attempted to go beyond reporting to influence the judicial process. The audio recording was presented as is, nothing more. Barış Pehlivan's questions were also journalistic questions...

The response to ethical issues should never have been a detention and subsequent arrest. As Hande Fırat, who showed solidarity, also emphasized, Suat Toktaş could have been tried without being held in custody. Arresting him and putting him in prison, like the hours-long detentions, amounted to preemptive punishment.

President Erdoğan's remarks, the article by Yeni Şafak columnist Aydın Ünal titled "Media free to the point of being unruly," and the statements of all government spokespeople are also manifestations of the collective attack being carried out against the opposition media...

Ultimately, Suat Toktaş not only showed a reflex as a journalist but also demonstrated the foresight to take full responsibility for the published news. It falls upon us journalists to support him and show solidarity. This is our obligation as colleagues.

Let us leave the government's "privileged journalists"—who write headlines like "Not journalism, but influence peddling" in Yeni Akit and "Scandalous broadcast" in Akşam—to their own moral values... After all, traveling in palaces and private jets is for them, while the paths to prison are for independent, critical journalists...