Cumhuriyet and Kırıkkanat failed to manage the crisis

Mine Kırıkkanat’s social media post targeting former CHP Chairman Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, calling him a “crypto sword remnant” (kripto kılıç artığı), was problematic. “Sword remnant” is a derogatory term that stigmatizes Alevis and minorities. “Crypto” was also a demeaning, accusatory, and insulting approach toward Kılıçdaroğlu. 

Following the backlash to this post, neither Kırıkkanat nor Cumhuriyet was able to manage the crisis correctly. Instead of apologizing to both parties from the very beginning, Kırıkkanat’s apology only to Alevis, stating, “…I did not know the connection between the term ‘sword remnant,’ which I used to refer to Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s surname, and historical massacres,” was insufficient.

The statement from the Cumhuriyet Board of Directors also recalled editorial principles but failed to take a clear stance regarding Kırıkkanat’s post. Consequently, Kırıkkanat had to announce that she was taking a break from her columns, and an editorial was published in Cumhuriyet. However, even in this editorial, Kırıkkanat was not mentioned by name, and it was emphasized that “it is unfair to disregard Cumhuriyet’s historical sincerity toward Alevis due to an individual mistake”; nothing was said about Kırıkkanat’s expressions toward Kılıçdaroğlu.

Three days later, Kırıkkanat called Kılıçdaroğlu and said, “I sincerely apologized for the unfortunate post I made about him. I am grateful for the maturity he showed,” and that is how the crisis ended. 

Undoubtedly, Kırıkkanat should have been able to express her views without resorting to insults. However, Kırıkkanat’s insults do not justify Mahmut Övür calling her “human waste” or Kılıçdaroğlu’s lawyer Celal Çelik calling her an “immoral, traitor, and a disgrace to journalism.” 

It is also unacceptable for a criminal investigation to be opened against a writer because of their words. The response to a mistake is not an investigation, but a reminder of the truth. Furthermore, her taking a break from writing is also a form of punishment.

İlker Başbuğ misunderstands “mülakat”

Former Chief of General Staff İlker Başbuğ’s article titled “The 36-hour Çanakkale interview” was flawed. 

In the title of the article, Başbuğ used the word “röportaj” (reportage), but in the text, he was discussing the “Interview with Anafartalar Commander Mustafa Kemal.” Of course, the “mülakat” (interview) that journalist Ruşen Eşref conducted with Mustafa Kemal in 1918 regarding the Çanakkale war, which lasted a total of 36 hours, is significant not only for its historical value but also in terms of journalism.

However, perhaps thinking that the word “mülakat” means “röportaj,” Başbuğ uses both definitions in his article; he even stated, “With this interview, Ruşen Eşref (Ünaydın) introduced Turkish literature to the genre of reportage.”

However, the equivalent of the old-fashioned term “mülakat” in modern Turkish is not “röportaj,” but “söyleşi” (conversation/interview). Reportage and conversation are two different journalistic methods. A conversation is conducted in a question-and-answer format, and the journalist’s role in the resulting text is more limited. Reportage, on the other hand, is a literary journalistic product in which the journalist incorporates their own observations, research, and impressions.  

Indeed, the great master of reportage, Yaşar Kemal, says, “The best reportage writers in the world are also great novelists.” Linguist Emin Özdemir also defines reportage as: “Reportage reflects a truth or a reality through research, investigation, traveling, and seeing, or through an inquiry method. It often does this within a narrative pattern.”

İlker Başbuğ is not the only one who confuses “söyleşi” with “röportaj” today; this is a widespread mistake. By calling a conversation a reportage, reportage is being trivialized. Let alone street conversationalists, not even every journalist can do reportage. Reportage is the pinnacle of journalism; it requires mastery, creativity, and an original style.

Ruşen Eşref and Falih Rıfkı, whom İlker Başbuğ mentions, were famous names of the “mülakat” (conversation) genre in the past. But the masters of reportage were Orhan Kemal, Sait Faik, and the greatest of them, Fikret Otyam and Yaşar Kemal. Confusing asking questions and getting answers with their work would be an injustice to them.

“We see different microphones, we are glad”

 While the miners’ protests in Ankara were ongoing, Mert Batur, the lawyer for the Independent Miners’ Union (Bağımsız Maden İş), was speaking to journalists at Kurtuluş Park on April 27. I noticed there were five microphones in front of him; Halk TV, Sözcü TV, Now TV, ANKA, and TV 5.

 A day later, when the union’s organizing expert Başaran Aksu came out of the meeting at the Ministry of Interior, the number of microphones had suddenly increased! Seeing a large number of microphones in front of him, from Anadolu Agency to Habertürk, Başaran Aksu could not help but remark:

 “We see different microphones here, we are glad. They weren’t there; they haven’t seen the workers’ protest until today. It is pleasing that they see it in front of the Ministry…”

While the workers were marching from Eskişehir to Ankara, sleeping on the sidewalk in front of the ministry, and while the police were beating them with batons and firing tear gas, the pro-government media, which had not seen them for 17 days, appeared only when Minister of Interior Mustafa Çiftçi intervened and persuaded the boss of Yıldızlar Holding to pay the workers’ rights. 

The pro-government media, which ignored and did not see them for 17 days, reported on the end of the protest. Of course, they again considered it their primary duty to extract a share of praise for the ministers from this result. 

 Ahmet Hakan also boasted on the last day about writing that Minister Çiftçi would intervene to solve the problem. You would think that they had discussed and covered the protest every day for 16 days in Hürriyet, where he is the editor-in-chief, and on his program on CNN Türk!

These are the familiar habits of the pro-government media. They stay away from events they fear will harm the government. In the opposition media, there is protectionism against CHP municipalities. 

Employees of the Buca, Karşıyaka, and Bayraklı municipalities in İzmir went on a half-day strike and marched to the CHP provincial building due to a collective bargaining dispute and unpaid wages. This protest on April 29, as expected, was widely covered in the pro-government media, especially by Anadolu Agency.  

However, the opposition media stayed away from this news. It only appeared in Evrensel with the headline “Municipal workers in 3 districts went on strike.” I could not see the news of the protest on Halk TV or Sözcü, which had reported “Protest at Buca Municipality. Employees will go on strike tomorrow” before the action.

The Italian journalist was also surprised 

I wrote last week that the message “Nobel-winning author Kazuo Ishiguro has died,” shared by Italian journalist Tommaso Debenedetti from a fake social media account, became news on dozens of sites in Turkey. Debenedetti, who carefully monitors the digital universe, noticed my article titled “How did the Italian journalist deceive?” and sent me an email. 

Debenedetti was also surprised that the fake news spread so much in Turkey, saying, “It is incredible that a fake X account of Ingrid Carlberg, which has fewer than 20 followers and was opened a few days ago, could deceive reputable newspapers.” He finds the show of such interest in Ishiguro, who has no connection to Turkey, “mysterious.” 

It is understood that Debenedetti, who thanked me for my article, will continue to share “fake death news” and deceive journalists: 

“I will continue to spread fake news to encourage the media to verify news before publishing it. I have been doing this for more than 15 years, and unfortunately, the world press continues to fall into the trap. And I keep wondering why.”

Write China news, we will pay

I had never seen such a “news award” before. The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China has organized “I Met China News Awards”; they will give awards to “in-depth, original, and high-quality content that covers China from different aspects.” 

In the competition, which is held in the categories of news, video news, and photography, the first prize is 60 thousand, the second prize is 50 thousand, and the third prize is 40 thousand liras. The jury is also interesting. In addition to journalists Aytekin Polatel, Hadi Özışık, İsmet Özçelik, Özay Şendir, and Yavuz Donat, Gözde Kirişçioğlu, the International Media Coordinator of the Directorate of Communications, is also on this jury.

 It seems that the Directorate of Communications also supports these awards and is in cooperation with the Embassy. However, the meaning of such a competition is clear. They are announcing that they will pay money to those who write news and take photos about China. This is not an award, it is an incentive… 

Yeni Şafak turned out to be right

After the attempted attack on the Israeli Consulate General, it was announced that the attackers caught wounded were brothers Onur and Enes Çelik. The names were published that way in the media as well.

 But Yeni Şafak, in the news it published two days after the attack titled “The wounded terrorist is not Enes Çelik,” wrote that one of the attackers was not Enes Çelik but a person named Ahmet İmrak. However, as if that newspaper had not published such a report, it stated in its news the next day that “the treatments of the terrorist brothers Onur Çelik and Enes Çelik are continuing”! 

Now the treatments of those attackers have been completed; first Onur Çelik and then Ahmet İmrak were arrested. No media organization mentioned that they had made a mistake by publishing the name “Enes Çelik” after the attack, nor did they apologize.

 However, in the end, the first report written by Burak Doğan in Yeni Şafak titled “The wounded terrorist is not Enes Çelik” was confirmed. This once again confirmed that news cannot be written in Turkey based solely on official statements, and that there may be errors in those statements.

In a single sentence:

• In addition to pro-government journalists, Özlem Gürses and Nevşin Mengü also contributed to the public service announcement titled “Approaching Drugs,” prepared by the Turkey Press Federation, chaired by Sinan Burhan, and the Ministry of Interior.

• In the Turkey newspaper’s report “One out of every four vehicles passed through the Eurasia Tunnel,” it is stated that the tunnel “earned 2.6 billion liras,” but “passage guarantee” payments were not mentioned.

• Hürriyet and TGRT Haber presented the “consultation meeting” that Minister of Justice Akın Gürlek held with AKP deputies as if it had been held with all deputies from the provinces in the Southeast. 

• Yeni Şafak did not publish Mansur Yavaş’s denial regarding the news “Yavaş said, ‘I am a candidate under any circumstances.’”

• In the news “Could not get out of nose surgery,” which was reported by AA and DHA and also used by Akşam, Sözcü, CNN Türk, and NTV, the name of the accused hospital was not mentioned, and the news was one-sided.

• Yıldız Holding took 15 journalists to Venice for artist Ahmet Güneştekin’s “Sessizlik/Silenzio” exhibition; the holding’s Chairman of the Board, Murat Ülker, also attended the opening.

• A new lawsuit was filed against journalist İsmail Arı, who is in prison, due to an old post from 3 years ago; journalist Tolga Şardan was also sentenced to 5 months in prison on the grounds that he “publicly insulted judicial organs.” 

• Ensonhaber wrote, “There are those who go to the emergency room 300 times in 1 year,” but the news stated that only one person went to the emergency room 300 times. 

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