TRT is openly breaking the law

For as long as I can remember TRT has been used by governments to their political advantage. There have been a few short periods of happy anomalies, but otherwise TRT has never fulfilled its constitutional duty to provide ‘public broadcasting’. The powers and responsibilities that are clearly stated in the TRT law have been ignored by the corporation’s directors.
 
TRT has always found itself under the pressure of the government and has served as the pro-government broadcasting body.
The situation we witness today, however, is different and worse than this terrible norm. TRT is no longer just an instrument of propaganda;  it has taken on a hitherto unseen role. It  has started to behave like an active political actor, behaving like a political institution in its own right, and certainly one that is incompatible with its duties and authority. Even more alarming is the fact that TRT seems to have taken on the role of judge and prosecutor in the name of the government. And this is something, I repeat, we have never seen before.
 
Indications of this trend have been a long time coming, but a look at the events of the last three or four days should be enough to dispel any lingering doubts as to the accuracy of this analysis.
 
On 14 December, during a TRT 1 report on the arrest of a large number of people, the tagline “#edenbulur” (#reapwhatyousow) flashed up on television screens. The newsreader announced, “The main news story of the day is Turkey’s ‘14 December’ or ‘Tahşiye’ [Annotation] operation. There have been arrests and releases as part of this operation and we will have a look at each of these issues individually. We are waiting for your comments on our hashtag, ‘edenbulur’.”
 
Here TRT is openly violating the law, is interfering with a legal process and is passing judgement on an criminal investigation that has not yet been concluded. And the situation is worse still, because this broadcast is not merely a mistake made by a few editors and a newscaster during the hectic preparation of the news. Speaking about the “#edenbulur” hashtag, the corporation’s general director, Şenol Göka, said, “This is done more with the aim of drawing attention to the news item. Taglines are given to the news; this can be perceived as a comment on the item but it can also be done to attract attention. The one in question is to talk about an issue that has been submitted to court.  It was presented with such a tagline. I don’t think of it as a comment that will influence its past or future.”
 
This is a rather confused justification but a good example to explain my point nonetheless. There is no need to beat about the bush; in this example, the principle of neutrality, if nothing else, has clearly been violated in a case ‘that has been submitted to the court’, and as well as acting as prosecutor and judiciary, the corporation has acted in contravention of the Constitution and laws. Can there be any doubt that this is the case?
 
Another example of the new role played by TRT is the so-called documentary entitled “The 17-25 December Coup Attempt” that was broadcast on TRT on the evening of 17 December. For almost one hour this programme, broadcast to coincide with the one-year anniversary of the corruption claims that led to the resignation of four government ministers, discussed the political conflict between the government and the Gülen movement, asserted that the events of 17-25 December were a coup attempt aiming to overthrow an elected government, claimed that the corruption investigations were illegal, and concluded that the investigation process was the pursuit of political revenge. The only people to feature on the programme were a large number of government ministers and pro-government journalists/writers; not a single person from the opposition was invited to speak. Furthermore, there was no discussion of exactly what the corruption claims were or who was involved, and participants on the programme were not asked to offer their opinions on such subjects. The most basic of broadcasting principles, such as objectivity and neutrality, truth and justice have clearly, and it would seem knowingly, been violated.
 
In journalism the distinction between ‘claim’ and ‘fact’ is of utmost importance, yet in the programme broadcast on 17 December, allegations of crimes that have been ‘submitted to the court’ were always presented as absolute truth.  In this broadcast TRT did not give a voice to all parties and thus, by imposing a single viewpoint, chose once again to play the role of prosecutor and judge.
 
Finally I turn to a slightly older example: in the last Presidential election, the Supreme Electoral Council (YSK) punished TRT for one-sided broadcasting by imposing a broadcast suspension on a total of seven programmes. This example is extremely valuable in terms of showing how the directors of TRT understand the basic principles of broadcasting. In the attempt to justify the decision to give more airtime to the then prime minister than other candidates, Bülent Arınç, deputy prime minister and responsible for TRT, said that the corporation did so with a concern not for “equality” but out of  “fairness,” i.e. that the prime minister could not be considered equal to other candidates, or in Arınç’s own words: “this process is not one that requires equality but fairness. How can there be equality here? Who are you; who is he; who is that person?”
 
The understanding of broadcasting principles held by TRT's general director Göka also appears to be extremely problematic. When speaking of his views about media impartiality he said, “Don't imagine that it is possible to be completely impartial, that it is possible to reflect an event here completely independently of anything else. Incontrovertibly, together with the way it is conceptualised, the manner in which it is presented and the expectations after it has been presented, there is bias. It is not possible to be completely impartial. In terms of this bias, for TRT we believe that we display a bias that is on the side of tradition, the nation and the public.”
 
This complicated, barely comprehensible sentence of Göka’s is full of opinions that could be debated at length, but all I can say is that the broadcaster has no duty or responsibility to be on the side of any person, place or community. The broadcaster should not be ‘on the side of the public’; it should simply inform the public. Furthermore, in order to enable the public to develop an informed opinion, it should give time to the opinions of all parties.
 
It would seem that all we can do is once again remind everybody of the meaning of concepts such as impartiality, fairness, providing information, and enlightening the public. Interestingly though, the Constitution and TRT Law already tell us all we need to know. Article 133 of the Constitution  describes TRT as ‘the unique radio and television institution established by the State as a public corporate body’ and asserts that the corporation ‘shall be autonomous and [its] broadcasts shall be impartial.’ And article 5 of the TRT Law contains some very clear definitions that will clear up any doubts Göka may have on where the broadcasting authority stands vis-à-vis the public.
 
The broadcasting principles outlined in article 5 describe TRT’s duties as follows: “The corporation should produce sufficient and impartial broadcasts on subjects of interest to the public in order to enable the healthy and free development of public opinion; and should not be used as an instrument for the interests of a political party, group, interest group, belief or idea.”
 
Given this clear mandate, I would call upon those responsible for TRT’s editorial policy to take a fresh look at their conscience and ask: Was the “#edenbulur” tagline the right thing to do?  Was it right to give no voice to the opposition in the “17-25 December Coup Attempt” programme? You have just read the answers in the previous paragraph.
 
In recent times TRT has undergone an important series of trials and has failed miserably.  We all know that the corporation is not a real public broadcaster, but it is still required to fulfil its legal responsibilities out of an obligation to us  all. At the moment it is abusing its position. This situation is unacceptable because we all pay taxes for the very purpose that TRT carry out responsible public broadcasting.
 
English translation by KATE FERGUSON.

Tags: NULL