TURKEY, EU NEED PRESS FREEDOM

Today’s Zaman
Nov 26 2008
Turkey

Turkey has reformed some clauses of its censorship law, especially
Article 301, but the law remains an impediment to press freedom,
said David Dadge, director of the International Press Institute (IPI).

Dadge spoke to Turkish journalists in Ä°stanbul on Monday evening at
the Mecidiyeköy office of the Turkish Broadcasters Association. The
meeting was held under the auspices of the Press Institute Association
(Basın Enstitusu Dernegi) and the national committee of the IPI.

Article 301 is the law under which novelist Orhan Pamuk and many
other writers and journalists have been prosecuted for "insulting
Turkishness." This year’s reforms replaced that vague term with
"Turkish nation," reduced the maximum sentence under the law to two
years, and mandated authorization from the justice minister for any
prosecutions, but the law is still unjust, said Dadge.

The IPI director referred to the 2007 murder of Armenian-Turkish
journalist Hrant Dink, convicted under the law, as sad proof that such
legal accusations tend to feed a cycle of violence. Prosecution leaves
people suspected of being anti-Turkish, which in turn leads fanatics
"to attack or silence" their perceived enemies, Dadge said.

Dadge holds an honorary law degree and is the author of several books
on press freedom: "Casualty of War: The Bush Administration’s Assault
on a Free Press," "Silenced: International Journalists Expose Media
Censorship" and "The War in Iraq and Why the Media Failed Us." The
former editor of IPI’s World Press Freedom Review, Dadge became IPI
director in January.

Tensions with Ankara

Hurriyet newspaper’s foreign news editor Ferai Tinc, head of the IPI
national committee, introduced Dadge by noting that press freedom and
integrity have been under assault this year by government authorities
in Ankara, including the prime minister.

"This deep-seated sensitivity doesn’t need to exist," said Dadge. "It
takes confidence to discuss the army, legal cases or the Armenian
issue." He cited other articles of the penal code that forbid
insults to the army (Article 318) or comments on a current legal case
(Article 208).

Worse still, politicians have becomes as sensitive as institutions,
said Dadge, citing a war of words from the government over media
coverage of the Ergenekon trial, the Deniz Feneri case and perceived
government pressure regarding accreditation of journalists to cover
the prime minister to southeastern Turkey. The IPI director several
times mentioned the refusal of accreditation for news organizations
such as Zaman and Today’s Zaman to attend military briefings, which
he portrayed as a self-defeating attempt to manipulate the media.

Dadge criticized Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan for his reaction
to press coverage of the Deniz Feneri case, a prosecution in Germany
that alleged that a charitable Turkish fund had diverted money
back to Turkey for non-charitable purposes, including transfers
to the government or to Justice and Development Party (AK Party)
officials. Incensed at the allegations reported in the Turkish press,
Erdogan told his supporters not to buy those newspapers, which Dadge
said was a hit at the business of those media organizations and an
attempt to influence coverage.

"You would think politicians deserved a greater standard of care
from the media, but the opposite is true," said Dadge. "Media should
criticize politicians more, not less. And governments have to explain
themselves to the media, not remove those news organizations they
don’t like."

The media must hold the government to account and insist on their
right to access information, he said. News organizations must ring
the alarm bells internationally, through IPI if need be, and should
show solidarity in Turkey and with one voice tell the prime minister
to take two steps back from criticizing the media. In addition,
and perhaps the most crucial point, is for Turkish media to adopt
and enforce strict codes of conduct so that they can justify their
coverage to themselves and their critics.

EU has troubles, too

It is important for governments to understand the difference between
news and editorial departments, to understand that a critical op-ed
piece does not mean that the whole news organization is negative toward
that politician or policy, said Dadge. There is a blurred distinction
between news and editorial both in and outside of the European Union.

Dadge cited several recent cases in the EU that broadly interpreted
what constitutes criminal defamation: An Italian journalist in 2007
was sentenced to 18 months for reporting on politicians patronizing
prostitutes; a Polish journalist in 2007 got six months; and the
Slovakian parliament this year proposed a law making editors and
publishers criminally liable for opinions expressed in their news
organizations.

"The EU accession process has no benchmark, does not consider press
freedom," said Dadge. "The process as it stands could let Turkey join
with some of these problems remaining."

In the conflict between notions of individual privacy versus press
freedom, there used to be a presumption of press rights, he said, but
now judges are more likely to favor considerations of privacy. For
example, he cited this summer’s incident of photographs showing
racing association head Max Mosely in Nazi costume with a prostitute;
nonetheless Mosley won a libel suit against tabloid News of the World.

News organizations also need to resist government attempts to use
"national interest" to override press freedom, said Dadge. They need
to fight terrorism-led governments that curtail civil liberties in
general and press rights in particular. In the United Kingdom, for
example, the government can use a "D-notice" to prevent the press from
discussing sensitive topics or topics embarrassing to the government.

In the EU, there is a fear that discussing radical Islam in print or
on TV may incite fanatics to launch terrorist attacks, he said.

But the EU cannot lecture others on human rights when the union has
no benchmark on press freedom, said Dadge. The harmonization process
lets Bulgaria slide by without any look at its press freedom, for
example. Bulgaria entered the EU with huge corruption and a growing
mafia network, but a free press is the best antidote to government
corruption, and the situation with Sofia points to the failure of
the EU to see press freedom as fundamental to democracy.

The journalists at the meeting spent 90 minutes sharing thoughts at
the microphone. One reporter said he looked up "freedom of press" on
Google, hit the third item on the list and immediately got a warning
page from the government: "Access to this site is banned …"

–Boundary_(ID_jaAJ6265yaIKOqnon9mXQw)- –