arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

Nadire Mater has been a freelance journalist for more than 20 years. She now works for Inter Press Service (IPS), an international news agency that focuses on southern countries. She is also project advisor for the Independent Communications Network, a project launched in June 2000 by the European Union and based on local media in Turkey (www.bianet.org).

Mater also wrote "Mehmet's book", a collection of testimonies of Turkish soldiers about the war against the PKK in southeast Turkey. The book was banned initially.

Indymedia: Could you tell us a little more about the way the media function in Turkey, and what the degree of truthfulness and freedom is inside the media system in Turkey?

Nadire Mater: It's very difficult, of course, to assess the "truth level"...

IMC: Yes. Could you maybe start by explaining what kind of structure the media sector has in Turkey: public/private, the level of concentration, things like that?

N.M.: Concerning television and radio, there used to be only state-run radio and television in Turkey, TRT, and just like in other countries, in the 1990's, the commercial and private televisions and radios started to come out. At the moment, if you look at the figures, around 300 local television channels, around 1000 local radio stations, and 800 local newspapers are available in Turkey. At the national level, there are more than 20 national television channels, commercial television channels, and of course TRT, state-run television, 5 channels, if I'm not mistaken. The newspapers are also private of course, dailies and locals. But the ownership structure is a very important issue; a danger for the freedom of expression. Why? Because there are 2 or 3 big media groups, and I don't know the exact figures, but I can say that 80 or 90% of the media belongs to these groups.

IMC: Locally and nationally?

N.M.: Not locally, because local media are mostly local investments. But of course, there is a such a tendency: step by step, the mainstream media are trying to buy the locals too – most probably it's the same in Belgium. Their idea is: if there is a need for local media, we can do that as well.

IMC: Do they only buy existing local media, or do they also start some themselves?

N.M.: No, they prefer to buy those that are in financial crisis. It's not easy to survive as a local media, especially during these economic crisis days. It was already bad before the economic crisis, and now it's getting worse and worse. In the 1980's, most of the owners of the newspapers were journalists too, or the papers were family businesses. But step by step, the big holdings, the business circles, started to buy some newspapers. For some time, it was mixed, and now, we can say that the media itself is holdings, mogul groups, business groups. Those business groups are into radio, television, newspapers, internet news, but also banking, tourism, all sectors. They really want to do everything.

IMC: How has this evolution affected progressive, left-wing media?

N.M.: First I think you should ask: are there any left-wing media, or have there ever been any? It's very difficult to answer this question. Of course, there were, or there still are, efforts and some examples, but it's very difficult. Once upon a time they were strong, and now they're affected by these developments. These developments of course affect the readers, the right to be informed, and the freedom of expression. So to that extent, it affects left-wing readers too.

IMC: In the western world, like Europe, the United States, and so on, there is no official, imposed censorship, but people say there is a self-censorship, because of "what the reader expects", and things like that. I suppose this is true for Turkey too.

N.M.: Yes, very true.

IMC: But is there a remainder of direct state censorship, and control of the content of the media, either be it public media or private media?

N.M.: Yes, of course. According to the Turkish Journalists' Association's research, in the Turkish penal code and related laws, there are 156 articles which limit the freedom of expression. But I think they're getting increasingly useless, because journalists tend to "get the hang of it". So that's self-censorship, which, in my opinion, is worse than plain censorship. Because under plain censorship, you know the limit, and you're just trying to push it back. Whereas under self-censorship, you don't know the limits, so you create your own. Of course, there are limits, but you add your own and your narrow them yourself. In Turkey, unfortunately, there's a strong self-censorship. I don't know what the level in Belgium is, but it depends on the situation in a country. If a system thinks it's in danger, it reacts. So it imposes limitations upon the journalists, if we are talking about media, and then journalists can find the way to "behave" by themselves. If they can't find the way, there are some alternatives of course: to lose your job, to be put on trial, to be sent to jail, etc. In Turkey, there are of course lots of examples of this. But on the other hand, that doesn't mean that we can't do anything. It's very difficult to fit Turkey in one single box, it's a complicated country. Sometimes, you read some stories or some columns that come as a surprise to you. Not often, but it happens.

IMC: You talked about 156 limitations in the law. What kind of limitations are they?

N.M.: I can't remember them one by one. Everything is included there, of course. For instance, when you write a story about suicide, or someone who committed suicide, you should be careful and avoid some shocking elements. It's in the law. That is correct, for instance, that's OK. It doesn't limit you freedom, it just shows you the way how to write it. But there is a whole terminology that you cannot use. If you use it, just one word of it, you can be sentenced. For instance, "terrorist" and "guerrilla". If you're working in the mainstream media, you know that you should use the word "terrorist". For this example, however, there is no article in the law that says you cannot use "guerrilla", or you should use "terrorist". This is self-censorship. You know that if you're working in a mainstream media outlet, you will write "terrorist".

IMC: Does the anti-terror law affect freedom of expression in any way?

N.M.: Of course, because its formulation is very broad, I mean, it depends on your interpretation. For instance, making propaganda for an outlawed organization. When you write something, who knows whether it's going to be considered propaganda or anti-propaganda? It's very flexible. This law is permanently hanging as a sword above our heads.

IMC: And it's also very broad, so that they can use it almost as they please?

N.M.: I wouldn't say it like that, you should be careful. What I just said doesn't mean that all journalists in Turkey accept the present situation as a fatality, not even the mainstream journalists. They try to push the limits, they try to fight against all these kinds of things. For instance, there is an article in the anti-terror law, article 8, about republication. We – a large group of journalists, writers, intellectuals – published all the banned stories and texts in what we call "The book of freedom of expression". And we signed it and republished them. During this trial, the prosecutor carried the case to the constitutional court. Because in that article of law, it was said that it makes no difference with which intent you quote a forbidden text. For instance, you can criticize something, and in order to make this criticism, sometimes to make exactly the opposite point, you can use some quotes from a text that was banned. If you use such a quote, that means you repeat it, and you can be sentenced. So the prosecutor – also pushed by this whole struggle, of course – carried the case to the constitutional court, and the law was changed. So now, when you are tried for something like that, the prosecutor and the judge have to look into the intent with which you made your quote.

IMC: Have you ever been in trouble, in jail or whatever?

N.M.: Not in jail, but a few times in detention. I wrote a book, which was banned, and it took two years in court before me and my publisher were discharged. The book is freely available now, but it was a big issue, internationally as well as domestically in Turkey. I was acquitted from insulting the army. That's another thing, of course, in Turkey. If you are writing about the army, be careful.

IMC: Finally, as we said, we are here to talk about the Armutlu situation. Of course, it's about hunger strike, death fast, which can only be successful if it's publicized, because it's partly a move towards public opinion. So my impression is that Turkish media are not talking about this issue, either at all, or correctly. If they talk about it, it's "pure terrorism", and "don't mix with these people", and so on. How, in your perception, has the Armutlu situation, being the death fast, but also the F-type problem, been covered in the Turkish media?

N.M.: First of all, I think you're a bit harsh on the Turkish mainstream media. The F-type prisons issue has been on the Turkish agenda since last year, more than one year almost. Some groups in prisons have started a hunger strike last October. In the beginning, the Turkish media's coverage, as I remember it, was not so bad. I mean, they tried to follow it. Concerning the hunger strikes, it's not a new thing. There have been hunger strikes in Turkey for 20 years, or more, unfortunately. So until 40 days, 45 days, nobody cares, because it's no news. They're in hunger strike, and it's expected that they might stop it someday. But after 40 or 50 days, it's become a danger to their lives. So in the media, it always starts after 40 or 50 days. As I remember it, the same thing happened during this hunger strike. This time, to some extent, the coverage has managed to create a kind of public interest for the hunger strikes. Which  was good, in my opinion.

The massacre on December 19 was a turning point for journalists. I'm not talking about the newspapers, but the journalists. After that, the journalists held meetings, and they discussed their journalistic approach. In Istanbul, for instance, when the security forces attacked the prisons, the journalists were about one and a half kilometres away from the scene. All they could see was the footage shot by television stations, but the next day in the newspapers, they wrote as if they had been there, with details of what happened, like "they burnt themselves", or "they killed each other". Journalistically, it was terrible and unacceptable. Last month, some forensic reports about the same attack came out. They are very reliable, I mean they looked very correct. But there is a problem between this report and the journalists' reports, in December, those two versions don't fit together. So it's a kind of a bad mark for journalists, those working for mainstream media at the time in Turkey. Later on, gradually, reporters, and especially the columnists – since they have more freedom, more autonomy – started to write about that, about the mistakes that were made during the coverage of the prisons issue.

Now, they still write about the hunger strikes, but not every day. When one of the strikers dies, it's news, or if an organization holds a demonstration, it's news too.

Today I think, it's 312 days, or 314 days, almost one year. It's the first time it's that long. I've never seen that before, in Turkey or anywhere else in the world; more than 300 days! So now, from time to time, they cover it.

IMC: When they talk about the problem, the hunger strike right now, or a demonstration, what kind of approach do they have, in what way do they talk about it? In a way that pleases the authorities, or is it objective?

N.M.: There are sometimes emotional columns about it... It's a very difficult situation. But I haven't seen any negative things these days, because I try to browse through at least seven or eight newspapers every day, so I cannot read all of them very carefully, of course. The minister of justice made some statements about the case, and some columnists – especially women – wrote pieces, writing as mothers sometimes; they directly addressed the minister of justice, urging him to do something about the situation. Others wrote things like: "I'm a mother, and if my child, my son, my daughter was involved in this situation, it is very difficult to say, what could I do?" This kind of things, emotional things. I cannot say that only negative things are written about it these days. But if it all goes on for too long, then the people might lose their interest. Because the delegation happened, and it was very important, I think you know that. (1) Turkey's most reputed intelligent, reputed writers and journalists came together, and they tried to make a consensus, but they couldn't do that, because they couldn't... They are very sad about that, and they cannot continue.

IMC: Have you got an idea of the way public opinion perceives the problem?

N.M.: At the moment, as far as I know, nobody's talking about that. Of course, that doesn't mean nobody at all, but if you can make it, just go to Istiqlal Street [one of Istanbul main commercial streets] and ask random people about it. I don't know what they will say. The people lost their interest.

IMC: It's not really a topic anymore?

N.M.: No. As far as I can observe, no.

(1) Just like in 1996, dozens of leading intellectuals and artists formed a committee, this time against F-type prisons. They appointed 4 mediators to try to reach an agreement between the hunger strikers and the government. The only result being a dialogue of the deaf, they gave up just one week before the December 19 assault on prisons.