Fatih POLAT
There has been a debate going on for years now as to whether the Press Notices Authority (Basın İlan Kurumu) discriminates between press institutes and whether it acts as a censorship board against especially establishments of critical journalism in circulating notices with a budget apportioned from the people’s taxes. As Evrensel, we can assert with some ease that we have a history of relationships with the Press Notices Authority that could be utilised for the answers of these questions.
In all cases the Press Notices Authority requested a defence from us in relation to news we have published, without a single exception, we have received notice publication fines. And for that reason, now facing a new case, it seems that the proper method is to discuss the subject in the front of the public opinion and to consider the matter in an open platform where journalists, professional press organisations and communication academics could witness it.
The Press Notices Authority, at its meeting held on 9 September 2019, have once again resolved to request a defence from Evrensel in relation to a news we have published.
In the dispatch the Press Notices Authority sent us, there is a reminder that, the Authority, which has been founded according to Act 195, as included in its 49th clause, “based on the authority given by this Act, deliberates and resolves the report and complaints concerning the violation of Basics of Press Morality by newspaper and journals which do not comply with the Basics of Press Morality” and notifies the decision to request a defence from us in relation to a news titled “The Gendarme Attack on Geothermal Energy Plant (Jeotermal Enerji Santrali -JES) resistance: he recorded many videos, let’s break the phone” by our experienced environment correspondent and Izmir representative Özer Akdemir, published on 27 August 2019 in the print and on our website the day before. The following is stated in relation to the grounds for the decision: “It can be observed that the description of security forces’ intervention in the events which the news concerns as an attack in the title and content of the news, by way of unmerited insinuations, generates a negative perception about the lawful army of the Gendarme and the Security organisation which are always devotedly and devoutly loyal to the motherland, nation and the republic and are examples of modesty, self-sacrifice and selflessness, and that considered in general, the news acts to serve the purpose of undermining the fight against crime by way of tarnishing the reputation of the Gendarme General Command and Security Authority which continue to work amongst our nation to ensure order and the welfare of our people.”
Let us know proceed to the discussion with our questions:
The following is stated in the section titled ‘the responsibilities of the Journalist’ in the ‘Rights and Responsibilities Declaration of Journalists of Turkey’ of the Turkish Journalists' Association (Türkiye Gazeteciler Cemiyeti): “The journalists use press freedom, people’s right to news and be informed with integrity. For this reason, the journalist fights against all forms of censorship and self-censorship. The journalist is primarily responsible to the people and to truth. This responsibility precedes responsibilities to public authorities and the employer.” Now, are we to concern us with this principle or to consider ourselves responsible to the principles of the Press Notices Authority with the fear of receiving notice fines? In cases where they contradict, which one of these are we to consider? We are directing the same question to the Press Notices Authority before the readership. Our reply, to be sure, is the criterion of our professional organisation.The decision should be given watching the video of the news for which the Press Notices Authority requested a defence from us. Is what is going on there an intervention or attack? We are directing the same question to the Press Notices Authority before the readership.The Press Notices Authority, in the defence requested from us, claims that our article has ‘the purpose of undermining the fight against crime’. Since it is clear that the subject of our news was the people who are resisting against the Geothermal Energy Plant being built right next to their houses, according to what are these citizens, who are defending their living space, culprits of crime? The Press Notices Authority should explain this to us.Soldiers or the police, does not the security forces ever commit crimes? For instance, were the actions of the soldiers who participated in the 15 July coup attempt, which also caused the death of many civilian citizens during this attempt, an attack or intervention?Has the Press Notices Authority ever requested defences from Yeni Şafak, Akit, Sabah and Star newspapers, which have been subject to a large number of inquiries due to hate speech and hate crimes until now? If it has, what are these and what has been their result?As a recent example, in relation to the attack taking place in Diyarbakır, Kulp, at a state when there are no court decisions concerning the case as yet, was Yeni Şafak requested to provide a defence for its headline ‘The attack was done by HDP (the Peoples' Democratic Party),’ which was also criticised by AKP Istanbul MP Mustafa Yeneroğlu?Metin Göktepe, a reporter for Evrensel from whom the Press Notices Authority requests a defence, was beaten to death on 8 January 1996 after he was arrested while reporting on a funeral and taken to Eyüp Indoor Sports Hall. Following the incident, prosecutors and ministers had claimed that Metin Göktepe was never arrested and had died after he had fallen from a wall. As a result of the persistent efforts of his colleagues and his newspaper as well as those following his trial, while it became clear that these claims were lies, the police officers who murdered Metin were tried and served prison sentences. What does the Press Notices Authority propose us in the face of such an event? Is it not to write that the police brutally attacked and killed Metin?
The questions may go on. We may cite tens of other examples to debate the difference of actions corresponding to concepts of ‘attack’ and ‘intervention’ with the Press Notices Authority.
Let us remind in concluding. 4 years ago, too, the Press Notices Authority had requested us to provide a defence due to our headline ‘One man, many deaths’ about President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and subsequent to our defence, had issued a 2 day notice fine.
Finally, let us pose the following question. Is the Press Notices Authority, [maintaining its diehard attitude], going to resort to fines in this incident where it is also clear that Evrensel is right?
Bülent Falakaoğlu
Hakkı Özdal
