Nefes's obligation of transparency

The lawsuit to cancel the CHP congress has led to a sharpening of divisions within the opposition media. Are you looking for those who speak like spokespeople for İmamoğlu, Özel, or Kılıçdaroğlu, or those who hurl insults? They are all present. News is being conflated with opinions, judgments, and expectations.

In an environment filled with such inaccuracies, the newspaper Nefes, which had followed a pro-Ekrem İmamoğlu line from the beginning, suddenly appeared with the headline, “Ekrem is important, but this should not be the party's only agenda item,” surprising both readers and polarized journalists alike, leading to a rise in reactions.

In fact, while Nefes's headline appeared to favor Kılıçdaroğlu, the story directly below it, “Tension in the CHP: The President is rubbing his hands,” targeted Kılıçdaroğlu, stating that his attitude could “play into the hands of the AKP.” Furthermore, the column by Nefes Editor-in-Chief Metin Yılmaz, also featured under the headline, contained direct criticism of Kılıçdaroğlu.

In this state, Nefes was siding with Chairman Özgür Özel and the CHP Headquarters while distancing itself from İmamoğlu. However, while the newspaper was making this maneuver, the headline it published was not a news report, but an opinion piece conveying a viewpoint. The sub-headline, “There is a call from within the CHP and its base to the party management,” lacked a subject. It was unclear who was making this call.

Indeed, the newspaper's own columnist, Nevşin Mengü, opposed the headline on her YouTube broadcast for this very reason. “It is unclear which voters or which base this refers to. I have not seen a voter base saying this,” she said, adding that the newspaper owed an explanation to its readers and the CHP electorate. Deniz Zeyrek joined in this criticism by Mengü, stating, “I do not approve of this headline either. I say this as the Ankara representative. I think it does not reflect the truth. Because I believe Özgür Özel is doing his best.”

While even its own columnists were awaiting an explanation, Nefes made a new maneuver the following day by featuring an interview Deniz Zeyrek conducted with Özgür Özel as its headline. Moreover, Özel responded to Nefes's headline from the previous day by saying, “Our struggle is not only for those in prison, but also a struggle for bread.” Thus, a tacit “correction” was made. 

The editorial board of Nefes had previously failed to act transparently regarding the headline, “They tore up the olive groves and planted concrete instead.” They had sent a reporter and a photojournalist to Hatay Dikmece, featured the resulting story as the headline in their April 28 provincial edition, and then completely erased it from the city editions. In my article, “The story of a headline being flown away,” I emphasized that Nefes should make a statement regarding this incident, which could only have happened through the intervention of someone whose interests were harmed by the news. Nefes did not even respond to my calls for an explanation...

Now, Nefes is failing to act transparently by not providing an explanation to its readers regarding the headline, “Ekrem is important, but this should not be the party's only agenda item,” which contains opinions and lacks a clear subject. I cannot speak to political maneuvers, but publishing such a “headline” and then burying one's head in the sand as if it never happened damages the trust relationship with readers.

In journalism, transparency is not a matter of discretion; it is an obligation.

ATTACKS ON CRITICAL JOURNALISM 

We live in an era of journalists who rejoice at the arrest of a colleague, applaud it, and even exert effort to prove the guilt of the arrested journalist. The writings of Cem Küçük, Hilal Kaplan, and A. İhsan Karahasanoğlu were exactly such examples. They argued that Altaylı's words constituted a crime and attempted to justify his arrest.

Ahmet Hakan, standing on the sidelines of this line, said, "Fine, let there be no arrest, but people should be mindful of what they say." Fatih Selek also spoke of Altaylı's past behavior and objected to the arrest on the grounds that "The government is also making a mistake. People like Altaylı are being turned into heroes through investigations."

However, the issue is not about supporting what Altaylı did in the past or sharing the same views as him. The issue is to set aside our previous criticisms and disagreements and oppose injustice—to oppose the arrest of a journalist simply for their words—and to stand in professional solidarity.  

Altaylı was subjected to an illegality where Chief Advisor to the President Oktay Saral, Minister of Justice Yılmaz Tunç, and the Directorate of Communications targeted him and issued a verdict before the judiciary did. The judiciary then invented a crime by accepting Altaylı's words as a "physical attack on the President." Independent and critical journalism cannot breathe within such a system of "extrajudicial execution."

Altaylı's arrest is not the only operation against media and freedom of expression in recent days. On one hand, there is the RTÜK's attack on Halk TV, Tele1, and Sözcü TV with disproportionate and unlawful penalties, while on the other hand, lawsuits and arrests continue.

Just a week ago, in an Artvin-based investigation, Ozan Cırık, Yavuz Akengin, Eylem Yılmaz, Dicle Baştürk, and finally Metin Yoksu were arrested, with their journalistic activities presented as crimes.

Journalist Hüseyin Aykol, who has spent his life in prisons, entered and exited prison for three days after one of the 63 investigations against him, which turned into a lawsuit and resulted in a 1-year and 10-month prison sentence, was upheld by the Court of Cassation.

Young journalist Furkan Karabay has also been in detention since May 15 on the grounds that his videos and posts "targeted public officials involved in the fight against terrorism and insulted the president." Journalist Ercüment Akdeniz's detention has also exceeded 130 days.

But if people are reacting to Altaylı's arrest by watching even his empty chair millions of times, it means the lifeblood of critical journalism is still alive despite everything.

"JOURNALISM AGAINST DIGITAL MONOPOLIES" DECLARATION

As the "Media Solidarity Group," we organized two workshops and conferences in Ankara last year titled "The Transformation of Journalism and Quests." We compiled the opinions expressed in the "Declaration of Journalistic Rights and Freedoms." After the evaluations of our colleagues and the management of the 12 professional organizations that make up the Solidarity Group, we gave the declaration its final form. The declaration was a roadmap that prevented us from losing our way in our struggle for rights and freedoms; it was also a call to struggle.

This year, as the Solidarity Group, we addressed a major problem in the professional field, our problems in digital media; on May 15-16, we organized a conference and workshop in Ankara again, this time on the subject of "Digital monopolies, threats, and quests." We organized the opinions and suggestions that emerged here as a second declaration under the title "Journalism Against Digital Monopolies."

Transnational digital monopolies, which have become decisive in delivering what journalists produce to readers and viewers with their secret algorithms, neither make copyright payments nor seize media revenues. These monopolies, whose algorithms are secret and closed to inspection, are suffocating digital media. Now, they are suppressing journalism even more with artificial intelligence applications.

In the declaration, in addition to these findings regarding the dominance of digital monopolies and the growing danger of artificial intelligence applications, the measures that need to be taken were also included. Journalism organizations and the media were called upon to fight together against the pressure, manipulation, problems, and dangers brought by digital monopolies and artificial intelligence applications.

Demands were made for the creation of new institutional models such as "journalism cooperatives," the urgent enactment of a digital copyright law, the recognition of journalistic products as creative works, the introduction of a digital services tax, and the inclusion of professional journalism organizations in negotiations between the state and digital monopolies like Google, Meta, Apple, and Microsoft regarding copyright and revenue sharing.

The declaration titled "Declaration of Rights and Freedoms II: Journalism Against Digital Monopolies" will be announced at a press conference to be held on July 24, the anniversary of the abolition of censorship, at the Journalists Association in Ankara, which leads the Solidarity Group. 

MEDIA CONTRIBUTION TO A "SPECTACLE OF DEATH" 

Following the death of social media influencer Nihal Candan, reports on "anorexia nervosa" began to appear in the media. In reports such as "The social media threat in eating disorders," this illness is mostly linked to a passion for weight loss and diets undertaken to achieve an ideal body.

Let me state immediately that there is a serious case of memory loss in these reports. Nihal Candan did not contract this illness while trying to lose weight. She became ill after she began refusing to eat to protest her imprisonment in November 2023, where she was held alongside her sister Bahar Candan; she dropped to 37 kilograms while in prison.

However, the media, which uses the Candan sisters as tabloid fodder, neither attempted to understand her protest nor focused on the possibility that she had been subjected to injustice, nor did they stop making her the subject of tabloid programs after her illness. While their "privacy" rights were trampled upon as much as possible, the Candan sisters, captivated by fame, did not take a step back either. Ultimately, in the words of Yasemin

Inceoğlu, Nihal Candan's day-by-day wasting away and her step-by-step approach to death was turned into a "spectacle of death."

It is a major contradiction that instead of looking back and reviewing the media's (and of course social media's) coverage of the Candan sisters to learn lessons, the focus is now on reporting the reactions on social media against the video of Bahar Candan roasting halva for her sister with Dilan Polat. Bahar Candan and Dilan Polat are chasing more views and more attention, and the media that criticizes them for this is in a rush to use them for more clicks and more views.

Moreover, they are willing to spread danger by equating a mental illness like "anorexia nervosa" with the obsession for weight loss and an ideal body... 

In a single sentence:

- Cumhuriyet prepared a report titled "Hagia Sophia could collapse" by speaking with experts İlber Ortaylı, Gürol Sözen, Nezih Başgelen, and a guide; Sözcü republished it the next day without citing the source.

- Sabah and Korkusuz hid the name of the hospital where the Mozambican influencer died following aesthetic surgery; Akşam, however, provided the name of the Özel Tusa Hospital, leaving no gaps in the subject of the report.

- Akşam, Yeni Akit, and Yeni Şafak published a promotional text for a mobile operator titled "What's left from your package doesn't go to waste" without adding a "This is an advertisement" warning, while Hürriyet, Milliyet, and Posta published it with a tiny advertisement disclaimer at the bottom.

- Yeni Akit insulted CHP Chairman Özel by writing "The dog barks" next to his photograph.

- Sözcü ran the headline "Fell into the volcano and died," but the Brazilian female tourist had not fallen into the volcano in Indonesia, but rather into a ravine next to the crater.

- Sabah published a report stating "Californium sent to the Atomic Energy Agency," but the Governor of Kütahya had announced that the substance police found in a vehicle was not "californium."

- The "Turkey Century in Trade Summit" organized by Yeni Şafak was sponsored by the Ministry of Trade, Halkbank, Vakıfbank, Ziraat Bankası, Turkcell, THY, and Limak.

- Cumhuriyet and Haberler.com published a photo of B.B., a defendant in the Ahmet Minguzzi murder case, taken while he was speaking on the phone in prison, showing his face clearly despite him being under the age of 18.

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