Implemented by the Association of Journalists and financed by the European Union (EU) the Media for Democracy/ Democracy for Media Programme continues to hold its journalists’ meetings in its Press House in Ankara. The Press House Meetings started off in June with journalist Sedat Bozkurt’s workshop on “State, Politics and the Media”.

Many journalists and faculty of communication students attended the event, Director of the M4D Programme Yusuf Kanlı made the opening speech with these remarks “The Press House was realized in cooperation with the EU; it was established with the aim of consolidating journalist resources and increase networking to enable journalists to better practise their profession and exchange ideas. The problems the media sector in Turkey faces are increasing day by day. This place (Press House) was realized to show solidarity, to exchange ideas, to learn from senior professionals, to stand by journalists who have been made redundant, who have been kept away from writing, illustrating and making news. This evening Mehmet Dülger is going to hold a talk about “Demirel, Democracy and Media Perceptions”. Throughout the month we will be hosting Ömer Lütfü Avşar, Ünsal Ünlü and Semra Topçu alongside “Teyitorg” and “Oy ve Ötesi”. We will also be observing the 23 June Istanbul Elections in our Press House. We welcome all of you to our events.”

The State aims to own the media sector or make it dependent on itself

Bozkurt asked young journalists about their experiences and emphasized that throughout the world the state, politics and media are in a constant struggle and without a democratic platform through the separation of powers one cannot conduct journalistic activities. Bozkurt underlined that the media sector needs academics “Our profession has a practical problem, the knowledge we acquire is everyday information, there isn’t left much for us journalists behind the scenes. That’s why our sector needs academics. Most of the time it’s problematic to form sentences using the word the state, even if we were to debate the definition of the state we probably wouldn’t get anywhere. Instead we add the media next to the state; the media has the power to monitor the state. The state is an abstract concept, if you take out the people in it, you’re left with empty buildings and signs. The state is an institution that is shaped by the people inside these buildings. Depending on the qualities of these people the state can crumble, or it can change. I’d like to emphasize that there is no meaning in sanctifying the state. People attribute holiness to the state and in turn use it to establish power. In this sovereignty-power domain there is a contradictory force which is the media because it acts on behalf of the people to monitor the state. Those in power do not like this “monitoring” business. Here starts and issue of power, the state then aims to own the media sector or make it dependent on itself. The struggle between the state, politics and the media happens not only in our country but all across the world.”

Journalism is political, its activities are partial

Bozkurt urged that in order for the media to become the fourth power a democratic regime is imperative “When we observe the struggle between the state and the media in other countries, we see that our country is a little behind. In order for the media to become the fourth power you need a democratic regime. Without legislative, executive and judiciary branches it would be impossible to establish the media as the fourth power. Journalism is political, its activities are partial. There is no such thing as objective publishing. Without establishing a democratic platform through the separation of powers one cannot practise journalism. Journalists are objective when conducting journalism but partial when selecting news stories. Journalism has another problem: it is also a commercial activity. There are bosses and there are employees, this of course limits journalism. You cannot be a journalist with the aim of turning a profit, and if your boss’ interests and the interests of the public which has vested in you with being the fourth power conflict, then as a journalist you are faced with a dilemma. Therefore, a journalist shouldn’t act on behalf of the interests of their boss or to turn a profit, otherwise we couldn’t call it journalism.”

The principles and ethical values of journalism cannot be changed

According to Bozkurt those who have taken over the state apparatus have transformed into an identifying tool in the media “The media and journalism have certain principles. One of the most important principles is being on the side of peace; to be against war and advocate civil rights. Our country is fighting terrorism but the apparatus that is doing this is the state. The media doesn’t have the duty of fighting terrorism. Depending on the government national interests can change but the principles and ethical values of journalism can’t be changed. Therefore, it would be wrong to expect journalists to produce content inline with national interests they have determined themselves. Unfortunately, in our country those who control the state apparatus suddenly become an identifying apparatus and starts defining who a journalist is, who a doctor is, or who a lawyer is… These are all very problematic. None of this can define who a journalist is, or what journalistic activities comprise of; only professional associations and their members can make these definitions. State institutions cannot make these definitions. The relation between the state and the media is generally composed of oppression and censorship. This relationship has never functioned for the benefit of the freedom of the press.”