In a country where human rights are fully secured and exercised, the Turkish media could not survive a single week.

- 11 / 05 / 2008 07:06

I'm among those who don't think it's right to reference one's own previously written columns. However, sometimes you feel obliged to go back to a previous column and expand on certain phrases.

Last week I wrote: "Frankly speaking, if the news stories and essays that appear today in Turkish newspapers are translated into the language of a country where human rights are secured, the majority of Turkish newspapers would not be allowed to be published for more than a week. They would certainly be penalized on charges of discrimination and hate."

I have received various reactions. Just as there were people who found my assessment to be truly correct and who have lived or still live abroad, there were also those who reproachfully said, "Come on -- how on earth is this possible?" I am saddened and ask your forgiveness that I must reiterate the following: In a country where human rights are fully secured and exercised, the Turkish media could not survive a single week; I will stand behind my assessment to the bitter end. Let's translate the newspapers published in Turkey word by word and publish them in a foreign country for a week. Those who aren't banned from publication after being translated letter by letter will be those who engage in genuine journalism.

The heaviest penalties in the West are imposed in relation to discrimination and hate crimes. For that reason, nobody can humiliate or insult anybody for their language, skin color, religion, gender or choice of lifestyle. The kind of media that corners people by generalizing and belittling them can be imposed only in those countries where democracy is not practiced and where the administration is a dictatorship.

In a country where human rights are under full state protection, companies cannot even demand a passport photo from those applying for a job. The moment you say "What will you do with my photo?" or "The only thing you are supposed be concerned with is my vocational experience and career," the legs of your interlocutor turn to jelly. Even inquiring after people's religion, sect, denomination, ethnic origin or sexual preference might be reason for the filing of a massive criminal case.

Discrimination a the hands of the media

Amid the "practices peculiar to our country," it's human rights that incur the greatest damage. And unfortunately, the worst cases of discrimination are perpetrated by the media. For those who find this assertion of mine exaggerated, I have a surprise: When I received opposing reactions to the article in question, I requested that Serkan -- my assistant who is always there to help me out like Khidr whenever I need something urgent -- to perform a search on the issue. We determined some critical words and focused on their hurtful, wounding, insulting and branding effect on people. Because the secular versus anti-secular debate is kept in the spotlight, at a very intense pace, we chose these six words that describe and even denigrate and label people: "Reactionary, bigot, tightly headscarved (the expression used in Turkish is 'squeezed heads,' a term coined by a columnist to insultingly refer to headscarved women), pitch-black-burqa wearer, sectarian, fanatic." (All these words have very negative connotations in Turkish and are always used to denigrate people.) And then we quickly scanned texts in four newspapers not considered "marginal": Hürriyet, Milliyet, Ak?am and Vatan. This is not an academic study, of course… We just wanted to get a general idea, albeit from a certain distance. On one hand, it is possible to carry out a more comprehensive and more scientific study; however, the real aim here is to see the general circumstances for ourselves rather than targeting conclusive results.

The results of our study speak for themselves. Since the beginning of the year, the words we chose were used 245 times in 114 news articles and columns published by newspapers that have acquired a certain level of venerability. I'm not talking about their being used in the technical sense; I'm bringing to your attention only those used in a humiliating context. Furthermore, this small and amateur study doesn't include magazines, television, Web sites, etc. When you include all of them, you will be sorry to see how inconsiderateness and impudence have become a major writing style. You will feel sorry for our country and our media. If people were to ask "Do you have the right to harass and insult us to such an extent?" nobody would have an answer to give, because the things written, drawn, spoken and consumed in the Turkish media are clear and open violation of human rights.

Columns: the worst examples

I'm obliged to note the more saddening part of the truth: an overwhelming majority of these humiliating words are not used in news articles: They are used in columns. The implication of this is so obvious: The crimes of hatred and discrimination are not committed either by novices or those who have embarked upon and continue along a certain route in the profession of journalism. These crimes are committed by people who have reached a certain level in this profession, who have come of age and who have achieved the level of sharing their experiences with the public. Shouldn't humans become more mature as they grow older? Shouldn't experienced people be more polite, courteous, encompassing and more embracing?

There is another result yet to be extracted by those who have the familiarity of an insider in this profession. Being a columnist no longer means anything in this country. Some people have pushed aside the common sense expected of them in line with social responsibilities and started calculating how many "clicks" they get for each online column. There is no trace of thought or contemplation in their columns, but they have the "clicks" of fanatic groups formed by their poisonous expressions. The lust of becoming a columnist who is intensely read online spoils the language, style and demeanor of some people. Not only this -- there is also the strange, recently formulated judgment that "those who employ harsher language are paid more attention." Maybe some people prefer columns written in a harsh tone; however, it is obvious that such columns don't benefit either the country or the writers of the newspapers that publish them.

There is another assessment I should make, which will be more clearly understood by those in this profession: The editors-in-chief of newspapers -- the people who walk a tightrope -- preserve objectivity in news articles, but when it comes to columns, frequent violations of rights take place. This should be discussed, but since editors-in-chief fear being labeled as "censors," they cannot intervene in the expressions of insult used in columns -- whereas there are standards for being a columnist and there has to be, just as there are certain standards applied for journalism all around the world. A columnist cannot have the power of heaping systematic insults; if he or she has that power, this situation is put down to the weakness of the editor-in-chief. I know there will be people who will want to twist my words by asking "Do you want censorship?" And certain ones among them will portray themselves as defenders of free journalism by employing the journalism jargon. Of course, my aim is not to spread censorship. However columnists should be prevented from sticking their pens into the hearts of people, from dauntlessly insulting people, institutions and corporations, from completely disregarding people's rights and dignity and from devastating social peace.

I could cite here the part of our small study about columnists, but I don't think it is necessary. You already know those who deem it a great achievement to hurt people. Unfortunately, there are journalists in this country who owe their careers to the insults they level at people. This cannot go on like this. The people of this country have long been saying "I demand world standards." Everybody should make a balance sheet of their deeds according to the universal framework of this profession. Even if the necessary legal regulations may not be enacted in the future, a civil society that knows how to seek its rights will eventually find a way to consciously rise up against any sort of discrimination. No force can inculcate what is rejected by the conscience.