Media's test with politics
With three elections on the horizon, everyone should be careful in shaping their political stance. Those who don't know where to stand do not know where you stand.
And they turn into a dark propaganda machine built upon their biases. In the past, intellectuals would be categorized into one of "three political styles." Today, we can speak of "three editorial styles" to understand their actions.
1. Journalism that seeks to hamper to death:
This editorial policy sees a political party (especially the ruling party) as the enemy and tries to defame that party at every opportunity. This attitude does not lead to democratic review, but to an antagonistic interpretation of all the party's actions. According to this mentality, everything the party does is wrong and amounts to “treason.” However, what matters is the nature of the deed in question, and categorical hostility does not do anyone any good. In democracies, the duty of the media starts here: review of performance! To support beneficial policies and criticize harmful ones is the duty of not only good editorial policies, but of everyone who is fair and conscientious.
Some sections of society enjoy this conflict-oriented editorial policy very much. The desires of the angry masses may strain and polarize the society, and may, unfortunately, even lead to clashes. Nevertheless, if you ask which is more destructive in a democratic society, making such provocative publications or silencing those unfair publications, I would say, the most dangerous is the silencing of those noisy objections at the hands of the state. This is because the right to determine how dangerous an idea is will be followed by arbitrary practices. Those who wallow in the mire of terror are not our concern. Rest assured that the overwhelming majority of society will always exclude and marginalize those destructive publications that border on insanity.
2. Journalism that seeks to support to death:
Can all policies of a single party be correct? No, impossible! No one can claim that everything we do in worldly matters is completely right. However, there is an editorial policy of lending total support to everything a specific party does, never stating any error or making a friendly warning when that party makes mistakes. You are either a “friend” or an “enemy” in the eyes of the fanatical editorial policy that supports one party (ruling or opposition). This policy attributes a sort of sanctity to every action of that party. However, those who seek to govern the country do not need our consecration; they need cogent and constructive ideas.
Partisan journalism, too, corresponds to something in society and the reasons for it are clear. However, the petulant attitude of partisan journalism, particularly if it has attained a certain degree of power, is liable to produce contract killers. The selfishness with which those who think differently, including those in the same camp, are treated generally results in tragic consequences, particularly if the sacred ideals are abandoned.
3. Middle-of-the-road journalism:
This is the hardest editorial policy. You have to use your mind and will to make sense of realities internally and internationally, and you have to point out what is wrong. Isn't it possible that what you call wrong is not wrong? Of course. You can always be wrong in worldly affairs and this applies to politics as well. But the important part is to act with good intentions. Even constructive criticism voiced without seeking private gains can be voiced, but the critiques should not be self-interested and they should refrain from demagoguery. Alas! Those who opted for the middle way should be prepared for ordeals. If you choose to follow this way, then you are expected to report every incident. And you must be multifaceted in your comments and analyses. You have to be open to international views. At times, there may be great gaps between the way you (the editors) and your columnists perceive certain events, but if you believe that an exchange of ideas will enlighten, you should publish them unless they contain inaccuracies or insults. To say "I won't publish your articles if you don't put my ideas into it" is to build a small cell for yourselves. It is hard to beat ideas with ideas. It is difficult to have opposite ideas on the same page. Sometimes your readers may feel confused, but this must be done to enrich our intellectual world, unless you are lost in the labyrinth of "Everything I know is correct."
Everyone has his choices. I don't criticize anyone for their chosen editorial policy. Rather, I appreciate them. Of course, it is the public conscience that will decide which policy is beneficial. That conscience will either punish you for your unfair publications or reward you for your attitude that raises our intellectual level. Also, history will try everyone. Your respect for diversity and your tolerance will determine your place in history, as history will extract a heavy price from those who act unfairly, when the dust settles.
This is utterly disgraceful
An old and experienced colleague, like some other columnist, has been writing odd articles for some time. I can hardly believe it. For instance, in an interview he gave to a Russian media outlet, he likens Mr. Fethullah Gülen to George Soros. To say that he does not know what he said would be an insult to his famous intellect. To say that he knows what he says would be to say that he is ill-intentioned. But I cannot believe that he, an experienced colleague, can have ulterior motives. As we try to save him by saying, "He must have said it erroneously," he publishes a statement in his column, but it does not explain anything. It fails to explain a bad analogy that may amount to a catastrophic character assassination and might put innocent people in an unfavorable position.
As we are about to tolerate this scandalous error, he writes a very harsh article about the rift between the Community and the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), targeting the Community. In this article, his tone is like that of a party spokesperson. Does he want certain columnists to be censored or silenced? Does he want them to be fired? The news ombudsman of the paper where he is the chief columnist is fired, but he does not utter a single word of criticism about it, while he hurls the heaviest accusations at the entire Community just because a columnist wrote something in an English daily. Yet, the paper he criticizes is also publishing dozens of articles approving of the government's policies. I cannot understand if it is polite to speak recklessly from one paper, urging all columnists in another paper to applaud the government's policies. As an experienced chief columnist, he should have realized that one paper can have differing opinions. Suppose you are angry with Today's Zaman or "the Community's mouthpiece." How can you hold Mr. Gülen responsible for every view expressed? Why do you make offensive remarks about Mr. Gülen and even the entire Community instead of criticizing the columnists?
It appears that people are waiting in line. As if someone had signaled the advance, some colleagues launch an attack against the Community. They destroy the rules of courtesy with their wayward articles designed to discredit the Community. Meanwhile, they utter such scandalous remarks (particularly in the social media) that they can hardly be reconciled with human or Muslim values. Everyone talks about certain articles, but apparently they haven't seen or read those articles. Their ideas rely largely on lies and slander, and you are bewildered by reading them. The Prophet of Islam said, "In the holy month of Ramadan, demons are shackled." It is hard to reconcile such grave acts of backbiting in this period of divine bliss with humane or Muslim behavior.
They utter unbelievable words. Why do they say that the Community seeks to become a new tutelage regime or to “share the power”? Not in the least! Take your Leviathan and use it as you wish. Their reckless articles show that they have failed to internalize the role of civil society organizations, the media and opinion leaders in participatory democracy. Egoistic and hateful discourse will only offend one's friends and lead to one's exhaustion. Too bad!
- Created on .