Archive

Tag Archives: self-censorship

By now, you’ll have heard – perhaps via international media, or on Twitter or Facebook – about the protests that started in defence of one of Istanbul’s last remaining green spaces, and have now, in response to heavy-handed policing and broader worries about democratic rights, spread across many cities in Turkey

I’ve been following the torrent of communication and coverage on Twitter mainly via a mixture of local and international academics, NGO people and journalists – ranging from Asli Tunç, Yaman Akdeniz, Zeynep Tufekci (who has also blogged a rapid, excellent analysis), and Burcu Baykurt [UPDATE: Burcu has written a very comprehensive post detailing the main media reform issues emerging from the Gezi Park protest movement] to Aaron SteinBenjamin Harvey, Hugh Pope and Amberin Zaman – as well as feeds like 140 Journos. (Feel free to tweet me or @mediapolicy with further suggestions.)

One of the most widely discussed (on Twitter) aspects of these protests has been the mainstream Turkish media’s perceived failure to cover the protests fairly, adequately, or in some cases at all, leading Bloomberg’s Benjamin Harvey to tweet the following:

Turks being confronted with the now-undeniable deficiencies of their media may be one of the most important aspects of these protests.

In report after report after report [UPDATE: 3 June 2013 – see comment below for further resources], those deficiencies – and the reasons for them – have been thoroughly, exhaustively anatomised. Asli Tunç and Vehbi Görgülü’s Mapping Digital Media Turkey report (2012), for example, gives a very comprehensive overview of the Turkish media sector and its travails, and is part of a 50-country series that mediapolicy.org readers know well. The Carnegie report (also supported by OSF) by Marc Pierini and Markus Mayr on Press Freedom in Turkey, takes a different approach. Introducing the report in January 2013, Pierini wrote:

I didn’t conduct yet another inquiry into press freedom. More modestly, I analyzed all the reports published on the subject by governmental and non-governmental, Turkish and foreign entities during the last two years. Although they had different focuses and methodologies, all these reports convey one single image: Turkey’s record is bad because it fares well below the country’s democratic credentials and is hurting the nation economically and diplomatically on the international scene.

One has to hope that the Gezi Park crisis will lead in some way to genuine reforms in Turkey’s media policy and media sector, freeing journalism to play a stronger role in the country’s democracy. As Turkey is one of mediapolicy.org‘s focus countries, we’ll definitely follow developments and build up useful resources over the coming weeks and months. We’d love to hear from academics, researchers, civil society and journalists interested in sharing perspectives on media policy and reform in Turkey – please get in touch on email or Twitter

Justice Mihayo who is also the Chairperson of the MCT’s Ethics Committee said though information was an integral part of democracy and good governance, the government should not block or limit access to crucial information which it does not want the public to know.
He said there are a number of reasons for the government to limit the access of information, and one of them was limiting the public from knowing their rights, so that they would not demand them and the authorities desire to sustain bureaucracy which is a hindrance to good governance.
Another one is to give positive impression of the government and its organs to hoodwink the public on the actual conditions obtained in the country. Faulting the projection of false impression by the authorities, Justice Mihayo said the best way for any government to be close to the public is transparency.
On the media he said, there are also a number of problems on how they operate and inform the public. Apart from some owners influencing editorial content and interfering in day to day operations, there are some media practitioners who censor themselves and thus withholding crucial information, he said.
Another problem is the influence of business and political interests, which he said deny the public crucial information and sometimes feed them with fabricated and cooked reports. It was generally agreed in the deliberations that it was imperative that the%

Justice Mihayo who is also the Chairperson of the MCT’s Ethics Committee said though information was an integral part of democracy and good governance, the government should not block or limit access to crucial information which it does not want the public to know.
He said there are a number of reasons for the government to limit the access of information, and one of them was limiting the public from knowing their rights, so that they would not demand them and the authorities desire to sustain bureaucracy which is a hindrance to good governance.
Another one is to give positive impression of the government and its organs to hoodwink the public on the actual conditions obtained in the country. Faulting the projection of false impression by the authorities, Justice Mihayo said the best way for any government to be close to the public is transparency.
On the media he said, there are also a number of problems on how they operate and inform the public. Apart from some owners influencing editorial content and interfering in day to day operations, there are some media practitioners who censor themselves and thus withholding crucial information, he said.
Another problem is the influence of business and political interests, which he said deny the public crucial information and sometimes feed them with fabricated and cooked reports. It was generally agreed in the deliberations that it was imperative that the%