Faruk Bildirici: Our media has become polarized even in fire coverage

Faruk Bildirici's "Our media has become polarized even in fire coverage" article is as follows:

In the early hours of the morning, the expressions on the faces of the reporters broadcasting live from in front of the Grand Kartal Hotel, which was burning in Kartalkaya, did not match their words. They were reporting "10 dead, 32 injured," but their faces conveyed that the situation was much more dire. They continued their broadcasts like that for hours, and the headline "Fire disaster in Bolu: 10 dead, 32 injured" remained on screens for hours.

News channel executives and reporters were aware of their responsibilities. They were not taking the risk of reporting the number of deaths, and especially the names, without official statements and verified information; they were showing respect for people's grief and avoiding causing further distress.

They did not even mention the name of the hotel in their broadcasts until the afternoon. Even the fact that Sözcü columnist Nedim Türkmen had lost his life along with his wife and two children was not reported until definitive information arrived; they acted with caution. Like television channels, news websites also maintained a calm tone, continuing to broadcast based on the statement from the Bolu Governor's Office.

Of course, there were those who made the mistake of entering the burning building, such as CNN Türk, and broadcasting from there. But in the first hours, the number of such broadcasts was not that high; in general, TVs and news sites waited for the ministers' statements.

However, the ministers' statement did not provide what was expected. In any country in the world, when such a disaster occurs, the goal is to clarify the causes and those responsible for the incident; officials stand before journalists and answer all questions. In Kartalkaya, however, the five ministers did not provide any substantial information beyond telling journalists first that 66 and then 76 people had died, and Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya even prevented journalists from asking questions.

THE BAN DECISION WAS DISTORTED

It did not stop there; as in previous similar disasters, a broadcast ban was promptly imposed. As he does every time, RTÜK President Ebubekir Şahin announced this decision by distorting it as if a general broadcast ban regarding the fire had been issued; he imposed an understanding that disregards media freedom, such as "only paying attention to the statements of authorized bodies." However, the Bolu 2nd Criminal Judgeship of Peace had issued a broadcast ban "regarding the scope of the investigation file."

Unlike previous similar decisions, the judgeship's broadcast ban also prohibited "criticism" in addition to "news, interviews, and similar broadcasts." How is journalism to be practiced without criticizing or questioning? The media and the public's right to information were being censored.

These statements restricted reporters and broadcasts. Sözcü TV reporter Barış Yalınkılıç consistently responded to Fatih Portakal's questions regarding the hotel's license, inspection authority, and fire extinguishing system by saying, "Unfortunately, I cannot share information with you due to the broadcast ban." In fact, Portakal, who brought the broadcast ban decision to the screen as an example of dark humor with this broadcast, also criticized the ban and stated that the broadcast ban prevented the clarification of questions.

He was right; the censorship decision, labeled a "broadcast ban," prevented journalists from asking questions and examining the causes of the fire and the responsibilities involved. One would assume there would be no need to resort to such censorship if there were no problems, deficiencies, errors, or responsibilities to hide.

One of the justifications for the broadcast ban was "misinformation"; RTÜK also claimed that "it was observed that some incorrect information was being spread." However, until the broadcast ban decision was made and RTÜK threatened to punish broadcasters, there was no reporting that could be called "misinformation." The most concrete proof of this is that not a single "disinformation warning" regarding the fire in Kartalkaya was issued from the social media account of the Communications Directorate's Center for Combating Disinformation. And that remains the case...

Later, there were reports on some websites with question marks such as "Have the names of the deceased been identified?", but this was not misinformation; it was clickbait. Of course, what was done in such an incident was very shameful...

AN EFFORT TO EVADE RESPONSIBILITY

One of the notable developments was that while opposition media criticized the publication ban that was lifted on the second day, pro-government media adopted it as if it were standard. A one-sided perspective prevailed in most of the pro-government media; they attempted to place the entire responsibility for the fire on CHP Mayor Tanju Özcan. Primarily, the Yeni Akit news site and social media accounts attacked the CHP mayor with headlines such as, "What are you hiding, heartless Tanju? You haven't been reachable for hours," and "Oh Tanju, oh! You burned our families."

Yet, Tanju Özcan was in front of the hotel at that time, giving statements to journalists and television crews from the opposition media, and responding to accusations directed at him by Minister of Culture and Tourism Mehmet Nuri Ersoy. Özcan explained that because it is a tourism zone, the authority to inspect the hotel lies with the ministry, and that they could only conduct an inspection upon request. He also argued that the 2007 inspection document from the Bolu Fire Department, which was leaked by the ministry, was issued during the term of his predecessor, an AKP mayor.

However, neither Yeni Akit nor news sites like Sabah, Hürriyet, and İnternethaber published Tanju Özcan's remarks; they only reported Minister Ersoy's accusations. Like the news websites, the printed newspapers also gave little credence to Özcan's statements.

A WAR OF MUTUAL DOCUMENTS

On the second day, the entire pro-government media, led by Anadolu Agency and TRT Haber, produced a document claiming, "Here is the fire report of the burned hotel." However, this document, dated 19 days prior, was not an inspection report for the entire hotel, but rather an assessment regarding a newly opened cafe-restaurant on the premises. The pro-government media published reports claiming that "The municipality issued a compliance certificate to the hotel," using this document to prove the municipality's responsibility.

In response to these accusations, Bolu CHP Provincial Chair T. Mert Karagöz argued that the fire did not start in the cafe-restaurant mentioned in the document; subsequently, they also released two documents. These documents, which were quickly published by almost all opposition media, showed that the hotel management had applied to the fire department for an inspection due to a project but failed the inspection, with eight deficiencies identified in the hotel's fire safety measures. According to the second document, the hotel management withdrew the application after failing to pass the municipal inspection.

In reality, these documents do not exonerate anyone. Because the hotel management did not rectify the identified fire safety deficiencies, even though they were aware of them at least after this report! The Bolu Municipality and its fire department did not approve the building, but when the application was withdrawn, they made no effort to ensure the deficiencies in the hotel's fire safety measures were completed; they closed the file without issuing a warning! The Ministry of Culture and Tourism, which is authorized to conduct inspections, was also uninterested in these deficiencies at the hotel and remained unaware of them...

ONE-SIDED QUESTIONING

Of course, these documents were important in terms of showing the connection between the fire department—and therefore the Bolu Municipality—and the hotel. They were also right to question why the Bolu Municipality did not keep a fire truck and crew on standby in front of the hotel in a tourist destination where so many people were staying.

However, they did not display the same inquisitive and critical attitude toward the government, and especially toward the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, which has the authority to inspect the building. They did not even dwell on the fact that Minister Ersoy could not disclose the two inspection reports he claimed were prepared for this hotel in 2021 and 2024. They never questioned the fact that Ersoy did not conduct sufficient inspections of this hotel, which is marketed by ETS Tur, a company he is a partner in, or the resulting 'conflict of interest.' The only dissenting voice on this issue came from Yeni Şafak columnist Aydın Ünal, who called for the minister's resignation:

'We have no expectations from the Bolu Mayor, as we know he does not possess even the slightest human value. The Minister of Tourism must resign immediately or be dismissed so that our conscience may be somewhat eased. For heaven's sake, let at least one official bow their head in shame after a disaster.'

Unfortunately, just as in the pro-government media, there was a one-sided perspective in a portion of the opposition media as well. They could not direct the same inquisitive attitude they held toward the government at the CHP-run municipality; they exerted effort to prove that the inspection authority lay with the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. In doing so, they relied on the articles of the 'Regulation on the Protection of Buildings from Fire,' which has been amended numerous times.

In short, the polarization in the media was also reflected in the news coverage of the hotel fire in Kartalkaya. I hope that in the coming days, all media outlets will abandon this one-sided perspective and objectively investigate and question the responsibility of both the CHP-run Bolu Municipality and the AKP-run Ministry of Culture and Tourism in this catastrophe...

The most striking image that remains in my mind from the fire disaster was the refrigerated truck from a poultry company that was brought in front of the hotel when the city's morgue capacity was insufficient. The 'Health to your mouth' (Ağzına sağlık) slogan on it was particularly unsettling. Fortunately, the writing was covered up following the backlash...

News Source: 12punto