This is not how you refute a 'paid extra' story

    BirGün's report, "Scandal at Kılıçdaroğlu's badge ceremony: Hundreds of paid extras brought to the event," was based directly on the observations of reporter Ebru Çelik. 

   According to her account, Ebru Çelik heard that an agency was recruiting people to attend the CHP's membership joining ceremony, so she signed up herself and traveled to the event in the same minibuses as those who had agreed to act as "paid extras" for 950 liras. 

    Following the publication of the story, there was a huge uproar on digital platforms, and the news spread rapidly through the media. First, CHP İstanbul Provincial Chair Gürsel Tekin, and then CHP Spokesperson Müslim Sarı reacted. Asking, "Whose paid extra are you?" Tekin filed a criminal complaint alleging "misleading information to the public." Sarı also accused the outlet of "slander" and "hit-job journalism." Tekin continued the same accusatory and insulting tone during his press conference.

     However, this is not how you refute a news story. Insulting language such as "hit-job," "paid extra," and "dirty media" is not a response; furthermore, attempting to punish journalists through criminal complaints and prosecutors does not befit representatives of a party that claims to defend freedom of the press and expression. 

     If you are issuing a statement against a report that a journalist has supported with messages from an agency and footage, you need concrete evidence. For example, a list of members who joined the party at that ceremony, or some new information that leaves no room for doubt, such as where the attendees of the ceremony came from…

    Moreover, BirGün and Ebru Çelik defended their story following these reactions. New footage and information supporting the report even emerged. Sözcü TV reporter Nedim Bayhan also released footage of a person saying that an acting agency had brought them to the ceremony with the promise of a 1,000 lira payment. Subsequently, Halk TV reporter Umut Taştan found different footage shared by the agency in question and wrote that the agency officials did not want to speak.

   Field reporting is a method that has been neglected in our media recently. BirGün's report is very valuable in that it reminds us of the importance of observing events on the ground. Indeed, Sözcü TV had also caught a glimpse of the story but failed to follow up and develop it.

      BirGün reporter Ebru Çelik, on the other hand, grasped the event from the very first moment and followed up on it. In this respect, she was successful. However, one could point out shortcomings in the report. After observing what was happening and obtaining footage of the money being distributed, Ebru Çelik could have revealed her identity, spoken with the agency and CHP officials, and interviewed some of the "extras" to fill the gaps in the story. 

    This would have also eliminated the ethical issue regarding the journalist concealing her identity. As is known, journalism is a transparent profession; a journalist may only conceal their identity in matters that cannot be observed otherwise and that are of broad public interest. It is obvious that there is public interest in this event.

   A statement that confirms while trying to refute

    In BirGün's report titled, "The 'Butlancı' figure became a lawyer with an invalid diploma," it was stated that the "law degree of O.D.," a lawyer appointed to the Kayseri Provincial Disciplinary Board by the new administration, "was canceled by a court decision in October 2025." It was alleged that O.D., who graduated from a high school in Turkey, had also enrolled in university with a diploma obtained from a high school in Russia.

   After many sites cited the report, the subject of the story, Onur Sergen Doğan, issued a statement denying the accusations. Doğan used expressions like "so-called news text" and "slander," but he also admitted that his Law Faculty diploma was canceled on the grounds that "the equivalency certificate was canceled." However, he argued that he had applied to the Council of State and that the decision was not final.

    In fact, this statement did not refute BirGün's report; it confirmed it. Because the report also mentioned the court decision and stated that Doğan's initial objection was rejected by the Istanbul 6th Administrative Court. Therefore, Sergen's remarks regarding the report are absolutely unjustified.

    The only shortcoming of the report was that the lawyer's name was coded as O.D. There was no need for such an abbreviation. In a report based on a court decision, the name should have been written clearly. Indeed, the lawyer who is the subject of the report revealed the unnecessary nature of the coding by issuing a statement himself.  

   Institutions making YouTubers run hidden advertisements

    The pro-government media showed great interest in the video shot by YouTuber Ruhi Çenet while he was touring the areas where houses were built in Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, and Adıyaman following the earthquake.

   The video, which includes footage of the earthquake houses that Çenet added to the end of his shoots in Göbeklitepe and Karahantepe by calling it the "most comprehensive mobilization," was reported on dozens of sites, including CNNTürk, Hürriyet, Milliyet, Medyatava, Mynet, Posta, Star, and TV100, with headlines like "Ruhi Çenet explained the construction of the century." The number of viewers exceeded 2.5 million. 

   Of course, criticisms of Ruhi Çenet followed immediately; on social media, there was praise on one side, and on the other, those who voiced the shortcomings in the houses and the aftermath of the earthquake disaster. Upon this, Yeni Şafak supported him with the report, "Those uncomfortable with their own country healing its wounds are on stage again: Unbelievable lynching of Ruhi Çenet."

    Interestingly, while Yeni Şafak defended Çenet in this way, its columnist İsmail Kılıçarslan approached this video from a different angle. Contrary to his newspaper, he clearly wrote in his column that he found it wrong:

    "Let's come to one of the complexes our neighborhood has entered to please the seculars, which I find very strange. For three days, Ruhi Çenet's earthquake zone video, presented with headlines like 'Even he admitted it,' has been on the front page, God bless.

    We all know as well as our own names that Çenet did not shoot that video by saying, 'Wait, let me go and visit the earthquake zone and tell my viewers what I see.' He went with a method we call 'collaboration.' He received money from one or several institutions. Those one or several institutions also did some 'media work' so that Ruhi Çenet's video would decorate the headlines."

     When we look at the issue not as "alienating the solid human resources on hand to 'convince the seculars'" like Kılıçarslan, but in terms of deceiving the viewers, this is also a wrong method. 

   If Ruhi Çenet was indeed paid by "one or several institutions" to shoot this video, it means a hidden advertising campaign was conducted. Yet, Ruhi Çenet does not mention such a relationship in the video; he publishes it as if he were curious and wandered around there himself. He even says he shot a "documentary." However, the connection between Göbeklitepe and the earthquake houses is very irrelevant and has an artificial air.

     Moreover, it violates the regulation on advertisements that will be updated as of August 1st. And it violates the regulation through public institutions…

   Hürriyet and journalistic etiquette 

   At Hürriyet, the "Yeter söz milletindir" (The word belongs to the nation) column has also been closed. They removed Yalçın Bayer from the newspaper quietly, without even allowing him to write a farewell piece or announcing it to his readers. Hürriyet showed respect neither to its writer nor to its readers.  

    Yalçın Bayer, who spent 35 years of his profession at Hürriyet, expressed his heartbreak over his articles not being published in the newspaper in a "Farewell to Hürriyet" text he sent to his friends:

    "Recently, practices called 'censorship' were bothering me, just like everyone else. Articles were frequently removed from publication without notice, and other news was inserted to fill the void. This was not pleasant at all for a journalist like me.

    It was a great disrespect for a television executive to exceed the authority of the newspaper's editor-in-chief and remove articles they deemed 'anti-government' on their own initiative. 

   Having articles removed from publication by having them quietly taken out by the editorial staff through a secretary was not an acceptable practice in our understanding of journalism. These practices cause us great sadness, and having to use harsh words when necessary also devastated us."

   Yalçın Bayer also stated that Hürriyet "could not be managed well due to political pressures" and that even salary differences and meal fees had not been paid for months. However, at the end of the text, he still expressed the wish, "Hürriyet should not collapse; it should continue its leadership in good hands."

    What he describes is very sad. Cutting articles with such a crude style is contrary to journalistic etiquette and principles, regardless of whether it is done to 64-year veteran journalist Yalçın Bayer or anyone else.

   ANKA's post and position

   In ANKA News Agency's post, "Citizens' positive reactions to Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu's call for purification," the views of nine citizens who were held microphones on the street were conveyed.

    This post caused reactions and criticisms on social media. Some interpreted it as "ANKA changing its position in the crisis within the CHP."

    In the Publication Principles of ANKA, which I also contributed to the formation of, it is emphasized that it is "an independent news agency that draws its strength from its freedom" and that it "accepts as its primary duty to convey the truth to the society without distorting, censoring, and with a fair and objective approach."

    Before the "Citizens' positive reactions" post, ANKA was reporting the statements, meetings, and all developments of both the Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and Özgür Özel sides in the CHP. As an agency, it cannot convey the discourse of one side and ignore the other. ANKA reports, and the media organizations that subscribe to it make editorial choices based on that data and use the news they want. 

    I looked and watched after the post as well. Did ANKA stop following and reporting on the developments and statements on the Özgür Özel side? No, it continued in the same way after that post as it did before. For example, ANKA also broadcast Özgür Özel's last group meeting live from start to finish. Therefore, the comments that "ANKA has changed its position" are not true. It should also not be forgotten that ANKA is the main news source for the opposition media today.

    However, I must also state that the post was problematic in terms of journalism. First of all, it is a deficiency that how the question was asked is not heard in the video. Publishing only "positive reactions" is also wrong. Publishing reactions without seeing the negative ones is not enough to fully understand the attitude of the person on the street regarding Kılıçdaroğlu's discourse. 

  Positive and negative reactions should have been published together, and the truth should not have been deformed.

     In a single sentence:

• Hürriyet covered up the criticisms directed at TRT, which did not broadcast the performances during the halftime of the World Cup final match, by publishing a story titled, "World Cup show failed the class."

• Cumhuriyet internet published a story on July 22 titled, "Who is Sungun Babacan, why did he pass away?" but voice actor Babacan had passed away four years ago, not recently. 

• Yeni Akit confused the arrested Haluk Levent with Prof. Dr. Haluk Levent in its story, "The Ahbap of Red Soros"; it did not correct the story, ignoring the denial of the Citizenship Association.  

• In his article, "City names were changed for ideological reasons," Prof. Dr. E. Buğra Ekinci in Türkiye newspaper did not write that the ancient name of Diyarbakır was Amida, and then Amid.

• On AHaber, a carpet fell on the head of a man on the sidewalk from the seventh floor of an apartment building in Erzurum, but when the footage was repeated exactly eight times, it looked as if the carpet had fallen eight times.

• Halk TV, Haberler.com, and Sözcü did not provide the information that Barış Yarkadaş was the first to share the footage on social media while publishing the footage of AKP Youth Branch Deputy Chair Coşkun Keklik firing into the air at a wedding he attended.  

• Sabah did not question the reason why the crime was allowed to be committed for two years without intervention in its story, "MASAK had been on Ahbap's tail for exactly 2 years."

• Yeni Şafak deceived its readers by presenting the full-page advertisement text of the AKP-run Güngören Municipality as if it were news without putting a "This is an advertisement" warning.

• Milliyet, Posta, Sol Haber, Yeni Şafak, and Oda TV used the footage of Mustafa Sarıgül kicking a citizen during the scuffle that broke out after Özgür Özel performed prayer at the Hacı Bayram Mosque without citing Kadir Gürhan from Elips Haber as the source. 

CRITICISMS, COMPLAINTS, AND SUGGESTIONS