No information but plenty of stick
The government provides no information or guidance. Consequently journalists write what they see and hear. When the authorities don’t like it, they get out their sticks and accuse journalists of provoking the public. We don’t know what to do. In Europe and America, crisis management is very different. The state provides a lot of information and provides guidance. They have no need for sticks.
The government has established an extremely faulty communication system that also involves the Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTUK) and TV channels. You’ll soon see it fail completely. What’s more, it’s going give the impression that Turkey is applying censorship. There’s so much difference between what was meant to happen and what actually happens now. Let’s first read the text that RTUK sent us: “Re the terrorist attacks that took place at Dağlıca/Hakkari’ on 21/10/2007: In accordance with article 25 of Law number 3984 on the Establishment of Radio and Television Enterprises and Their Broadcasts; and with respect to social responsibility and sensitivity in broadcast, in order to raise the morale of security forces, in order to avoid disturbing the psychological state of the public, and to protect the mental health of children; a decision has been made to stop the broadcast of radio and TV programs that exercise negative effects on public order and morale, weaken the powerful image of security forces, and disturb the psychological state of society.“ The reasons behind this attitude can be summarized in the following way: - To prevent some channels from exploiting public sentiment by showing exaggerated scenes of heartbreaking grief at funerals. (Exaggerated reporting was beginning to start dangerous trends. Some Kurdish neighborhoods were attacked. Even slight differences in opinion were motivating lynching attempts. The exaggeration had to be stopped.)
- Another reason was to stop some channels from broadcasting the opinions of people with no expertise whatsoever; individuals and some retired officers, were running from one channel to the other, pretending to be experts and passing judgment on what to do by pronouncing the most outrageous views. They disseminated false information and impressions in and outside Turkey. In short, the reason was to prevent information pollution.
- To prevent the written and visual press from depicting objectionable pictures and providing false information by grossly exaggerating military activities within the related regions.
- To reduce the tension created by the questions, criticism and commentaries concerning the attitude and tactics of the Turkish Armed Forces and about the eight kidnapped soldiers. The government wanted to appease the public and reduce the anxiety. When official statements didn’t work, the government tried to achieve it through RTUK. However, the general picture is one of complete censorship. Now, I want to ask you a question: Is there any relationship between the RTUK statement and what the government was trying to do? The statement is very abstract and open to individual interpretation. Especially the part about “protecting the mental health of children.” What on earth does that mean? What news does not conform to article 25? Are we to use no funeral scenes or casualty information? When we do use them, what are the reference points? These are my objections. If it’s indeed necessary to block some exceptionable broadcasts, article 25 is not the answer. The answer is to do what civilized countries do. In other words, officials establish communication with the channels, tell them exactly what they want, give concrete examples and solve the problem. You can be sure that the media will fall in with this method. It is wrong to restrain all channels because of a few marginal channels that exaggerate in the name of opposition. Neither the related ministries nor the military organized a proper information campaign during the crisis. Afterwards, they said, “you are ruining the country, pal.” In civilized countries, however, the media receive constant information in similar situations. In this way, they are also warned and guided. What can the media do in the absence of information but write and broadcast what they see and hear? As usual, the state took the easy way out. It preferred sticks to communication (information and guidance).
‘Neighborhood pressure’ on media increases… Everybody holds the media responsible. The government and even the military accuse and criticize us constantly:
“Why do you exaggerate the news of casualties and funerals so much? Why do you exploit public sentiment? Look, your broadcasts arouse the public. You invite Turkish-Kurdish strife.” You hear what they are saying and find that they are not entirely wrong. You fine-tune your article accordingly. This time, however, it is the people, the families of the soldiers killed in action, some political parties and associations that accuse and criticize you:
“ Shameless media…Sold-out media…Our brave soldiers lose their lives and get only two lines from you…” You bear these reactions and resist the pressure to avoid provoking Turk-Kurd conflict. This time it’s your colleagues who hit below the belt. “To us, there’s no difference between five and fifty-five soldiers killed in action. We are hurt just as badly. The pro-censorship media is trying to silence us, hand-in-hand with RTUK.” So you’re cornered by the neighborhood pressure that exists even at home and in your street and don’t know what to do. I am against the limits set by RTUK. However, when I feel the neighborhood pressures, hear the comments and the provocation on some marginal channels, see the news on soldiers killed in action and the funerals and witness the exploitation, I also give reason to the state. Still, I firmly believe that this is not the right method, and that I dialogue and information are.