Why did the cold cases wait for Akın Gürlek?

 The death of BBP Chairman Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu in a helicopter crash is back on the agenda after 17 years: 

 “Suspicious crash ‘turned into assassination’” (Akşam), “Intentional homicide” (Türkiye), “FETÖ-linked pilot’s harassment downed Yazıcıoğlu’s helicopter” (Sabah), “19 people arrested after 17 years” (Hürriyet), “Yazıcıoğlu operation in 10 cities” (Nefes), “Bombshell development in the Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu investigation” (Sözcü), “Striking documents in the Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu investigation” (Haberler.com) 

The Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu file is the latest example of cold case murder files reopened after many years. In fact, new reports are published almost every day regarding old files where the perpetrators have been caught: 

“Two more murders solved” (Türkiye), “Cold cases in Manisa are being solved one by one” (Ensonhaber), “The person who murdered Mezdeke Aynur has been caught” (İHA), “19 cold case murders solved in two months” (Akşam), “Killer found after 24 years” (Yeni Şafak), “Trace on cigarette butt solved 10-year-old murder” (Sabah), “Minister Gürlek announced that 6 cold case murders have been solved” (AA). 

All these developments began following the appointment of Akın Gürlek as Minister of Justice. Akın Gürlek, who established the “Department for the Investigation of Cold Case Crimes,” announced two days ago that six separate murder files committed between 2005 and 2016 had been solved. Gürlek stated, “The memory of justice is strong. No murder will be forgotten, no evidence will be ignored, and no perpetrator will be able to escape justice by relying on the passage of time.” 

Have the cold case files really been solved, and are those found the actual perpetrators? We will understand these over time, during the judicial process. But the reopening of the files and the capture of the perpetrators is, of course, an activity that should be celebrated. However, from a journalistic perspective, it is also necessary to ask why these murders could not be solved until today. 

 Of course, the development of forensic medicine technology and digitalization may have an impact on the resolution of some files. However, it is understood from the news that most of the files have nothing to do with the development in forensic medicine technology. Moreover, it is known that these files were not reconsidered until the Department for the Investigation of Cold Case Crimes was established at the Ministry.

So why hasn't there been a sufficient investigation into these files until today? Could it be that there was obstruction by some officials, as in the Gülistan Doku case in Tunceli? Or is it just a matter of negligence and inadequacy of security units? 

 We journalists must also pursue these questions. Publishing news about newly solved cold case files is not enough. If the obstacle to solving these files is a lack of political will, that is also a question worth dwelling on. Because the same political power has been in office for 24 years, and the Ministers of Justice of the same government have been in charge. 

Why couldn't previous ministers do what Akın Gürlek did; what is missing or extra? We must also seek the answer to this question… 

“Israeli language” and legitimization in the news

 The news repeated by NTV for two consecutive days on July 13 and 14 began with the sentences, “Despite the ceasefire, Israel’s attacks on Gaza continue. Israel targeted an area in Gaza City after issuing a prior warning. The moment of the attack was reflected on cameras.”

 After the footage of the explosion, the presenter repeated for the second time, “This is how the Israeli army targeted an area it had warned to be evacuated beforehand.” Then, they read the sentence, “The Israeli army claimed that the area was used by Hamas as a weapons production center.”

The words of a Palestinian man, “Our neighbors had a blacksmith shop. It was hit. They told us to evacuate the area too. We evacuated our children from there before they hit the area,” also appeared on the screen with footage. The news concluded by stating that the number of people who died in the attacks since October 25 has exceeded a thousand and that people in Gaza are not being fed sufficiently.

Throughout the 1.5-minute news report, the image on the screen changed several times; footage of the moment of bombing, the ruins, and Palestinians around the crater flowed continuously, but the text at the bottom of the screen, “Israel hit a building by issuing a prior evacuation warning,” never changed.

The emphasis on Israel having “issued a prior warning” is a language that legitimizes the attack. Issuing a prior warning does not give Israel the right to bomb that place. Reporting “Israel’s claim that the building was a weapons production center” without investigation is the second element that legitimizes the bombing. The news should have provided concrete information about whether that place was actually a weapons production center. 

The Palestinian who spoke mentions that there was a “blacksmith shop” there, but that also remains as a claim and is not verified. In any case, if his words are true, the news should have primarily reported that a blacksmith shop was hit and that civilians were bombed. The main emphasis should not have been on “prior notification.” 

The language of the aggressor should not be the language of the journalist. 

Stop showing female athletes as sex objects

One of the perennial problems of sports media is the presentation and objectification of female athletes as sex objects in photos and footage…

Unfortunately, we very often encounter examples of photos and footage of female athletes, especially in sports like volleyball and athletics, being taken from bottom to top and from angles that highlight body contours. I have written about this subject many times before. 

The source of presenting female athletes as sex objects is the sexist perspective in sports media. Think about it, in 2012, Erdem Kırım in Hürriyet newspaper was able to write, “There is a branch that men, in particular, should not miss: Women’s Long Jump.” In 2017, on their website, nude photos of a female athlete were published under the headline, “The world’s most beautiful footballer is a victim of a hacker.” There are also many examples of photos of female athletes taken from below while jumping. 

This is also a widespread problem in the world sports media. When the International Association of Athletics Federations placed cameras looking from the ground up in 2019, female athletes protested the practice, and after the discussions, it was forbidden to broadcast the raw footage of these cameras.

The new development is that the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) has prepared a circular that will prevent the presentation of female athletes as sex objects. In the circular, prepared by utilizing the experiences of Olympic competitors Holly Bradshaw, Ivana Španovic, and Blanka Vlašic, it is explained with examples how footage of female athletes in high jump, long jump, and running can be taken. 

A rule is introduced not to focus on the body contours of female athletes, not to take very close-up shots, and not to repeat slow-motion shots. Basically, it is requested that female athletes be respected and that the focus be on their performance. 

 I hope this work contributes to changing the sexist perspective in sports media. 

Sözcü’s defense is insufficient 

 In Sözcü’s headline, “This nation does not grant you its blessing,” there was a photo of 18 deputies representing Turkey in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Among those deputies, Namık Tan, Zeynep Yıldız, Pelin Yılık, Sevan Sıvacıoğlu, Mustafa Canbey, Seda Gören, and Meryem Göka emphasized that the decision in question was not taken at the Council of Europe, where they are present, but at the European Parliament, and that the two are different institutions, and they asked Sözcü to apologize to them. 

 Responding to this call with the headline “Sözcü does not make mistakes,” Sözcü defended itself by saying that because that decision could not be reacted to, in addition to the deputies in the Council of Europe, “25 deputies who are members of the TBMM-European Parliament Joint Committee and Foreign Ministry and embassy officials” were also criticized.

Sözcü’s defense is insufficient. Yes, all these officials were mentioned in the news of the “Does not grant its blessing” headline, but on the front page, there were only photos of the deputies in the Council. And it was written on top, “These 18 deputies represent Turkey in Europe.” 

 In fact, in the spot, these deputies were also accused by saying, “The European Parliament accepted a draft accusing the Turkish soldiers of abuse during the 1974 Peace Operation. Our 18 deputies representing us in Europe did not raise the world against this baseness.”

As such, the defense that the Foreign Ministry and ambassadors were also criticized is insufficient. I would understand if Sözcü had also put their photos and given their names in the headline. They have done an injustice by seeing the 18 deputies as an easy target and loading all the responsibility onto them. 

While I am at it, let me mention an injustice done to Sözcü. When Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu appeared on Sözcü TV, Milliyet and Yeni Şafak did not mention the name of Sözcü TV in the news, saying “a live broadcast of a TV channel.” However, when Kılıçdaroğlu appeared on TV100 last week, Milliyet and Yeni Şafak wrote the name of the channel clearly this time.

The truth is that writing the name of the channel is correct, but the double standard they apply is an injustice to Sözcü TV.

In one sentence:

•After Sabah, the Türkiye newspaper also published the promotional text titled “The 105-year journey of the Chinese Communist Party” as if it were news without stating that it was an advertisement.   

•On the anniversary of the July 15 coup attempt, the pro-government media was again covered with advertisements; the special supplements published by Akşam (24 pages), Milat, Milliyet, Sabah (128 pages), Yeni Asır, Yeni Akit, and Yeni Şafak (176 pages) were also largely filled with advertisements. 

•President Erdoğan’s speech on July 15 was broadcast live by all channels, including prime-time channels such as Kanal D, Show, and Star (excluding Sözcü TV and Halk TV). 

•In Tavır’s news titled “Summit meals from the hands of Michelin-starred chefs,” the chef Sinem Özler, who is called “Michelin-starred,” does not have a star; the restaurant she works at has entered the Michelin Guide.

•Yeni Şafak published the promotional text of the AKP-run Konya Karatay Municipality as a full page as if it were a news text without putting a “This is an advertisement” warning.

•NOW TV did not provide the information that the channel’s former lawyer Ece Güner was also among those arrested in the news of the arrest of Haluk Levent and 13 suspects. 

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