Weekly journalists’ meetings held in the Press House in Ankara as part of the Media for Democracy/Democracy for Media program have recently begun. Our first guest was Faruk Bildirici, who worked as a readers’ representative at Hürriyet Newspaper for nine years and parted ways with the paper in March. Many people attended Bildirici’s talk called “My Experience as an Ombudsman in the Turkish Media Sector”.
The journalists’ meetings aim to provide an environment for journalists to network, increase their solidarity and share their experiences.
Association of Journalists vice chairman and Program Director of the M4D Program Yusuf Kanlı made the following remarks in his opening speech:
“We reserved the first spot of these talks for our dear friend Faruk Bildirici who has worked for years as a readers’ representative. He’s going to tell us why we shouldn’t believe everything that we hear, and why we need to question information. Faruk Bildirici has entered a new period as an ombudsman in Turkish media, we will provide him with all the help we can give. We hope as an association to shed light on the problems and needs surrounding the media sector.”
Bildirici “I’m going to write about why certain things aren’t being written about”
Bildirici referred to himself as an “Unemployed journalist” at the beginning of his speech referring to parting his ways with Hurriyet Newspaper where he worked as a reader’s representative. Bildirici expressed his sadness about the current situation of journalism in Turkey, he also talked about the book he started writing following his departure from Hürriyet Newspaper, and in this book how he will document why certain things have not been able to be written. Bildirici made some striking statements regarding his work as a readers’ representative:
“It wasn’t very obvious to outsiders, but I was in a constant struggle. I had to fight for every sentence, every word I wrote; that’s why I wasn’t able to write exactly what I wanted to write. In my book I’m writing about these negotiations. I started this profession in Cumhuriyet Newspaper where the first thing I learned was archiving, that’s why I have everything documented. I’m writing about who advocated what? Why some things couldn’t be written?”
“An ombudsman is the least liked person in a newspaper”
Bildirici mentioned when he started working as an ombudsman his colleagues referred to ombudsmen as “the least liked person in a newspaper”, but he didn’t believe it in this those days. He said that he came to believe this at the end of his job as a readers’ representative “When I left the newspaper I had colleagues that were sad about it, but the top executives were quite happy to see me go because I pointed out their mistakes, not for myself, but to create surplus value from these mistakes.”
Bildirici talked about how readers’ representative is a tool for prestige, and referred to the history of ombudsmanship and its roots in Sweden and how it was established in the late 1980s in Turkey. According to Bildirici, Yavuz Baydar was the pioneer readers’ representative in Milliyet Newspaper in 1999, Bildirici started his work as an ombudsman in 2010 prior to that he practised his profession through writing and holding talks and in contrast to other readers’ representative he “only” did this job. While a readers’ representative in Hürriyet, Bildirici would answer e-mails and phone calls of readers in addition to his weekly column; he mentioned that in the past phones would never stop ringing in newspapers whereas today they are as quiet as libraries. Bildirici emphasized that he focused on never creating antagonism between the journalists and the readers “I would remove any insults and only send the critique of the reader to the journalists, this enabled discussion. It was good for the paper, too. I always learned what was wrong from our readers, their perspectives added a lot to me.”
According to Bildirici there are no media ombudsmen left, and journalism is at a cross-point between two situations.
“Journalism is stuck between two situations; first of all, it has been facing a lot of political pressure, our freedoms are being constricted. Second of all we are in the middle of an amazing digital revolution. We have been discussing digital journalism, new media. This situation dragged me to despair, yet a new audience has given me hope. I used to receive criticism “Why did you write your article this way?”, the next thing I know we were discussing the principles of journalism. Even the executives started criticizing each other on the basis of the principles of journalism. I feel I’ve contributed a bit in this context, and I believe over time people will come to understand this.”
“Journalists shouldn’t enter relationships based on interest”
Bildirici said he is against “invitation journalism” where individuals try to get journalists to portray them in a better light through inviting them on expensive trips etc. Bildirici emphasized that journalists shouldn’t enter relationships based on interest. The rules of journalism are defined, a journalist must go to a location only if they can’t watch it and they should express this in their content; the person that is going to travel cannot be selected from the host remarked Bildirici. Politicians have no say in who gets to travel with who said Bildirici and added that this happened when Süleyman Demirel was president of the republic.
Taking advertisements in columns, giving talks in exchange for money is basically advertising remarked Bildirici, the decrease in newspaper circulations and governments using advertisements as a tool of oppression have also contributed to this added Bildirici.
Journalists used to not right the name of a hotel politicians held a meeting in or would give the name of the hotel right at the end of the article; today we see the names of these places in headlines remarked Bildirici and added “If we are writing when good things happen we should also write when bad things happen. We have to write according to the rules, by taking into consideration the perspectives of the parties.”
“I wanted to write about Ahmet Kaya but they didn’t allow me”
Bildirici talked about how he always wanted to express himself freely and some of his writings were blocked; he wanted to write about the late Ahmet Kaya, who passed away in 2000, but management did not allow him. Bildirici said “Things written about Ahmet Kaya are still a topic of debate. We all know Hürriyet’s headline a Dishonourable Man about Ahmet Kaya, and all the other news. When Mr. Aydın said There’s a lot of criticism happening, file a report I prepared a detailed report. I spoke to everyone, from Gülten Kaya to the editor in chief, I researched and wrote a report. I wanted to write about Ahmet Kaya but they wouldn’t allow me.”
As long as people have the need to access news the profession of journalism will continue to exist
Faruk Bildirici stated that he had colleagues who practised the profession of journalism properly during the dark times of 12 September era: “Today we have many colleagues that continue to struggle as they did back then [sic], there are many unemployed journalists but as long as people have the need to access news the profession of journalism will continue to exist. Journalism is being practised on new media like YouTube channels, blogs… When journalists find new media, the current media will cease to exist. The deep-rooted newspapers of Turkey have exhausted themselves and ended up in this situation because they can’t reach the public. They told me you’re not in Hürriyet anymore, so I became a media ombudsman and they won’t be able to block me. I will continue to follow my own path by sticking to universal principles.”
