Attack Ensar Öğüt, hide the deputy minister

   In Hürriyet's report titled “Öğüt's brother also emerged from the fund,” it was emphasized that “Fisherman” İsmet Öğüt, who was found to have withdrawn 3 billion liras from the fund, is the brother of former CHP MP Ensar Öğüt.

   However, right above this was the news that “İskender Balcı is also in custody.” That report did not mention that İskender Balcı is the son-in-law of Deputy Minister of Treasury and Finance Osman Çelik and the son of Mustafa Balcı, a former member of the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BDDK).

   Sabah's report also stated, “The 3 billion lira money traffic of ‘Fisherman İsmet,’ brother of the former CHP MP, is being investigated.” However, in the report above it titled “New operation in the fund investigation: 9 in custody,” there was no mention at all that İskender Balcı is Osman Çelik's son-in-law.

   Of course, no one can be labeled a criminal due to kinship relations. But it is a double standard and protectionism to put it at the top of the news when it involves CHP's Ensar Öğüt, and not include it at all when it involves AKP's Osman Çelik. Moreover, unlike Ensar Öğüt, Osman Çelik is in an authorized and influential position.

    Like Hürriyet and Sabah, Akşam also included brother Ensar Öğüt in its “3.1 billion to Fisherman İsmet” report, but father-in-law Osman Çelik was absent from the “He came from Montenegro and surrendered” report. Yeni Şafak was the same. In its report “CHP MP's brother withdrew 3 billion TL,” Ensar Öğüt was at the very beginning. In the report “9 in custody in Destek and Özata,” the Deputy Minister was not mentioned. 

   Yeni Akit, while putting Ensar Öğüt on the front page in its report “CHP's ‘hay merchant's’ brother also turned out to be a fund swindler,” did not even report on the detention of son-in-law İskender Balcı.

    In the pro-government media, Türkiye newspaper was an exception. It approached both kinship relations with the same criteria and mentioned both. However, just a day before, it had taken the same stance as the pro-government media in the report on Fatma Betül Sayan Kaya's “pardon” from the AKP administration. In Türkiye, just as in Akşam, Milliyet, Sabah, Yeni Akit, and Yeni Şafak, there was no information that Kaya and her husband had invested 163 million into the fund and withdrawn 2 billion 170 million liras five months later. 

    The reason for Kaya's “pardon” was glossed over with vague expressions like “her name was involved in the fund crisis allegations.” It was also not reported that this swindle by Kaya was revealed not by an investigation, but by the statement of New Party Secretary General Yunus Emre. In any case, after President Erdoğan's speech saying, “We bid farewell to those who succumb to their ego,” the pro-government media's brakes failed, and even the fact that Kaya's assets were frozen could be reported briefly.

    However, the fact that the assets of Mustafa Yazıcı, son of AKP Deputy Chairman Hayati Yazıcı, were seized and then lifted, and that a travel ban was imposed, was never mentioned in the pro-government media. The words of AKP Deputy Chairman Nihat Zeybekçi, “I am also a victim of the fund,” and the investment of 250 million liras from his four companies into those funds were also ignored. 

   The fact that İskender Balcı is the son-in-law of Deputy Minister of Treasury and Finance Osman Çelik was only reported between the lines after he was arrested. Of course, when İsmet Öğüt was arrested, it was not forgotten to report again that he was Ensar Öğüt's brother.

   Then, Sabah quickly relegated the “fund investigation” news to its tabloid supplement Günaydın. It wrote that Mustafa Sandal's father-in-law Cihan Sütşurup was in sixth place on the list of swindlers, but did not write the names in the top five!

      These examples of protectionism once again concretize the pro-government media's effort to cover up points that touch the AKP in fund fraud news, and that it does not approach the opposition with the same criteria.

     Furthermore, in the opposition media, “son-in-law” news was highlighted in contrast, but “Fisherman İsmet” reports were not included. It is natural that this news, served from the same source, did not reach BirGün, Cumhuriyet, and Sözcü, but this name could have been mentioned in the following days.

     The exception in the opposition media was Nefes. Nefes included the responses of the accused in both reports where it emphasized the kinship relationship. The words of İskender Balcı were included in the “Sons-in-law's specific funds” report, and the words of Ensar Öğüt were included in the “3 billion caught on Fisherman İsmet's hook” report.

     This is the right way. Regardless of which party they belong to, one must evaluate objectively and report all accusations and defenses, regardless of who they are directed at.

“DIGITAL MARTIAL LAW” IN OPPOSITION MEDIA

    The Freedom of Expression Association (İFD), in its 2025 report titled “Digital martial law: Silencing the public on the grounds of public order,” prepared within the scope of the EngelliWeb project, emphasized that bans have increased to an extent incomparable to previous years.

       This year, access bans far exceeded last year. Especially September closed with a new record in access bans. According to İFD's findings, the number of X account access bans, which was 985 for the whole of last year, reached 1,270 in September alone this year. The total number of digital media content blocked in September is 3,492 according to the Dicle Fırat Journalists Association. 

    The bans carried out on the grounds of “protecting national security and public order” are mainly directed at journalists, media organizations, academics, and human rights defenders. Among those whose X accounts were blocked is Yaman Akdeniz, one of the founders of EngelliWeb and İFD.    Nearly 300 X accounts that shared posts about fund fraud, the Narin Güran murder case, and the Furkan Community were made invisible from Turkey. 15 news items on websites were also blocked.

    “Digital martial law” descended upon the opposition media with all its darkness. The accounts of media organizations Evrensel, Kısa Dalga, Jinnews, Sol Haber, Bizim TV, Turkeyindepth, Mezopotamya Ajansı, and journalists Furkan Karabay, Meral Danyıldız, Hikmet Adal, Tuğçe Yılmaz, Sarya Toprak, Esra Tokat, Ersin Eroğlu, Dinçer Gökçe, Ali Tarakcı, İrfan Değirmenci, Hilmi Hacaloğlu, Alptekin Dursunoğlu, Onur Dalar, Razi Canikligil, Canan Kaya, Yıldız Tar, Burçin Atılgan, Alex Crawford, and Erdal Sağlam were closed to access.

     The never-ending wave of bans even hit the T24 news site, which reaches millions and has attained the status of “central media” in an environment where total newspaper sales do not even reach 500 thousand. The reason for the complete blocking of the T24 site, in addition to its social media accounts, was the accusation of engaging in “LGBT propaganda” in 118 news items and articles published “in the last year.” 

      However, there is no such crime as “LGBT propaganda” in the laws. Besides, propaganda is not done through news. Moreover, most of the 118 articles referred to as “in the last year” are old; there are even articles from 2017 among them.

    One of the reasons cited for the ban is my article titled “Is the influence agent law in effect?” I was criticizing the way the “My family is safe” operations targeting LGBT associations were reported in the pro-government media. That article was also counted as “LGBT propaganda”!

      If the real purpose were these articles, they could have just blocked access to those links. The fact that they were not satisfied with those links shows that the target is directly T24. It is such a legal order that the peace judge imposes the penalty and has it implemented without even taking a defense. Only then can you object!

       Operations against the opposition media are not limited to digital channels. The operations, which started with the arrest of Merdan Yanardağ on an absurd charge and the closure of Tele1, continue at full speed. In the last month, journalists Selahattin Günday, Oya Lale Özan Arslan, Hüseyin Aykan, Ali Tarakcı, Tuğba Tekerek, Fatih Ergin, and Derya Okatan were also arrested. And all for flimsy reasons. 

      I am sure that independent and critical journalism will not be silenced anyway. We will be in solidarity with T24 and all our colleagues who have been arrested and whose accounts have been blocked. 

    The flag of journalism did not fall in this country during the single-party era, nor during the September 12 military regime. Critical and independent journalism will find its way despite such heavy “digital martial law.” As long as we do not compromise on our journalism and our loyalty to the truth.    

MURAT AĞIREL AND LEVENT GÜLTEKİN SPAT

   Murat Ağırel's reports, summarized with the headline “Gökçek family's million-dollar fortune in Germany revealed: 15-apartment building in Düsseldorf,” were a product of investigative journalism rarely seen recently.

    These reports, which Murat Ağırel first conveyed to the audience on Onlar TV and then continued in Cumhuriyet, resonated quite a bit in the media, and the prosecutor's office opened an investigation into Melih Gökçek, his son Ahmet Gökçek, and his daughter-in-law Hülya Gökçek. Statements and explanations confirmed that the Gökçek family established a company in Germany and transferred millions of euros. The source of the money and Melih Gökçek's position in these activities will be clarified by the investigation.

     One must congratulate Murat Ağırel for going all the way to Germany to research and report his findings on the spot. My only objection is his words in the article he wrote after testifying to the prosecutor: “I told the prosecutor's office what I hadn't been able to tell until today. I even submitted documents that I haven't shared with the public yet to the prosecutor's office.”

    A journalist's testimony in investigations should be limited to their reports. A journalist's priority is always the public; they do not hide what they have verified from society. They do not contribute to the investigation based on what they have not yet written or verified.     

     However, Levent Gültekin's words, “I don't get into such things. They pulled a Melih Gökçek operation through Murat Ağırel. Everyone in the media world knows a little bit about who gave that information to Murat Ağırel,” are wrong and unbecoming. It is Levent Gültekin's own business that he is not saying what he has heard. However, such an attitude cannot have anything to do with journalism.

    Strangely enough, Levent Gültekin does not say that Murat Ağırel's reports are untrue, but on the other hand, he contradicts himself by making the accusation that “he was used to pull an operation on Melih Gökçek.” If he knows anything about those who “pulled an operation,” he should have disclosed it; calling it an “operation” without clearly giving names and addresses is a great injustice.

     Murat Ağırel is right to object to this attitude of Levent Gültekin. However, as a journalist, he should not have let his response reach the level of insults and profanity. Levent Gültekin's response to him is also loaded with insults. This is a wrong style that distracts from the essence of the subject.

In one sentence:

• Evrensel, in its report “225 children died due to state negligence,” took care not to create a digital footprint by publishing a photo of the children taken from the side, where only their feet and hands were visible. 

• Koza TV published the footage of last year's speech where President Erdoğan said, “Every kind of sabotage will be held to account before the judiciary,” on the evening of September 27, writing “Did the instruction for victimization come from Erdoğan?” at the bottom of the screen, as if it were new.

• Karar, in the text titled “Nutrition support for 2 thousand students every day in İzmir” which contained a “This is an advertisement” warning, accidentally wrote the name of Metropolitan Mayor Cemil Tugay over the photo of the Soup Kitchen Manager. 

• In the “Doğru Yorum” program on TV100, the Central Referee Board operation was evaluated with names like Mustafa Sevigen, Hacı Yakışıklı, Mustafa Balbay, Murat Ilıkan, and Murat Kelkitlioğlu, who have no expertise in sports.

• Yeni Şafak deceived its readers by publishing the texts prepared by the AKP-run Kahramanmaraş and Bağcılar municipalities as news without putting an “advertisement” warning.

• Haber7 and Takvim wrote that “Mehmet Ali Yüksel was brought to the CHP İstanbul Provincial Presidency,” but Yüksel has not yet been officially appointed to this position.

• In Sabah's report “Market that said ‘No pesticides’ got caught: 1.1 million TL fine imposed,” the name of the chain market fined in Antalya was missing. 

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