CNN Falls Short in a Video on Press Freedom in Turkey

by Richard Peres

Ekrem Dumanli’s article, “Time to Counter Global Lies,” (TZ, May 9, 2011) told of misinformation campaigns aimed against the AK Party and the Gulen movement outside of Turkey. However, it seems to me that the bigger issue relates to the mainstream Western media. To the casual television and Internet viewer of short news videos, the segments appear to be objective, balanced and fair minded. Both sides of an issue are presented. However the result can sometimes be distorted. I wrote about this phenomenon in a recent piece, “MSNBC Paints a Distorted Picture of Turkey” (TZ, April 25, 2011), exposing the flaws of an online article.

Ivan Watson’s two-minute video on the repression of journalists

Ivan Watson is a young yet veteran international journalist for CNN with an impressive track record at CNN and NPR, which is why I do not understand a recent short video he produced on CNN, called “Turkey’s Battle over Press Freedom.” It not only links Prime Minister Erdogan and the AK Party to the prosecution of thousands of journalists in Turkey, it does so without any attribution of supporting sources.

This is not to say that the arrests of journalists are not troubling and that the government has no accountability. Turkey’s record in this area is bad and indefensible, as revealed by visiting the sites of Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders, reading their reports on Turkey and seeing where Turkey is ranked. Certainly the Counterterrorism Law and articles 215 and 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, that facilitate the prosecution of journalists, are partly to blame, as well as a problematic judicial system subject to the same polarization prevalent elsewhere in Turkey. Moreover, there are those who cite the government for not doing enough to overhaul the judicial system to clear these obvious obstacles to press freedom. However, the video begins and ends with opponents of the government, with a five-second interval of comments by another view. It also intertwines the issue of Ergenekon arrests and repression of criticism of Fetullah Gulen, as if they were one and the same. It never stops to consider why the government would even want to have journalists who cover alleged coup plots against the government to be arrested. The result is a decidedly one-side report, unfortunately

I can understand how the Western press has picked up on the issue of journalists’ freedom in Turkey. As a Western journalist myself I can tell you that it irks me as well. But it’s up to CNN to delve a little deeper into the complexities of Turkish politics even in its short videos.

The CNN video begins and ends with the opposition

The video begins with coverage on the arrests of newspaper columnists Nedim Sener and Akmet Sik and states that more and more journalists are being arrested as part of a “coup investigation” (Ergenekon). It shows journalists protesting, then we see Can Dundar telling the camera: “As Turkish journalists we are here to protest the growing repression of the Turkish media by the Turkish government for the last couple of years.” By the Turkish government? It would have been better had Mr. Watson delved into this issue and let us know who in the judiciary are in the service of the government and who is not. The issue needs to be explained to viewers as well as the depth of political opposition to the AK Party on almost every issue. Instead the tone of the piece is quickly set by an opposition leader to the government.

The video then switches to the topic of Fetullah Gulen and the repression of Akmet Sik’s book. The clear implication is that the government is going after those who criticize Mr. Gulen, who is pictured as closely aligned to the government. Ihsan Yilmaz was asked if it’s dangerous to criticize Fetullah Gulen in Turkey today and responded, “That’s the image they are trying to create; this is a smokescreen campaign.” Full stop. Mr. Yilmaz is on screen for all of five seconds the is quickly gone. An allegation that attacks on the journalists come from Turkey’s generals is mentioned, but then Prime Minister Erdogan becomes the subject on screen to the following voice over: “Commentators say that as his grip on power has tightened, Erdogan has become less tolerant of criticism.” Thus the video again links journalist repression to Erdogan thanks to unknown “commentators.” This statement is immediately followed by Andrew Finkel on camera: “I thought that Turkey was becoming a more liberal place; I thought that if you dismantled the military apparatus then the country would be freer.” Full stop. What questions was he answering? What was the context of his statement? We will never know but the impression given is that he is referring to Turkey not being free. Switch to picturesque shots of Istanbul with another voice over that “over 50 journalists are now in prison and thousands of others are defending themselves in criminal cases in court.”

This video ends with how it began, with Can Dundar, who states: “We want to be free to write. We want to be free to talk. And we want to be free to publish our books without any repression or fear.” Switch to protests led by Mr. Dundar with the final voice over from Mr. Watson: “Under fire, journalists are demanding that the government do more to protect a fundamental democratic right.” This is the third strike against the government. It is the guilty party regarding journalists.

A serious problem for Turkey

The lack of press freedom in Turkey strikes a nerve in the West, and for good reason. It is a clear indicator of democratic values. The mainstream press has picked up on this issue and will not drop it easily, an area that generates bad PR for Turkey and provides a hindrance to its joining the EU. The ruling party needs to do a better job of addressing the issues and explaining its actions to the West, particularly when asked in public forums. Nevertheless, CNN should take more care in how it covers this complex topic in Turkey.

Bush, Obama and the Post Bin Laden Era

by Richard Peres

I was at a business meeting in New Jersey on September 11, 2001, arriving early in the morning. A close colleague of mind lamented to me about his inability to book a booth for his company on the top floor of the World Trade Center, at the Windows of the World restaurant. He had tried until the evening of the day before that fateful horrible event. Then, as the news came in, the disappointment on his face suddenly changed to shock. The conference abruptly ended.

Driving home that day the smoke from the WTC could be seen across the Hudson, eventually smothering us with grief and torment. It was as if a dagger was struck into the hearts of us New Yorkers and it affected all Americans.

The impact was extraordinary, devastating and lasting not only on the American economy and world politics, but the American psyche. After 9-11, a galvanizing wave of nationalism swept the country unlike anything I had witnessed in my lifetime, similar to December 7, 1941, the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. That touchstone event of my father’s generation had sparked the start of World War II, something that the invasion of Poland, bombing of London and sinking of ships in the Atlantic could not do. Similarly, after 9-11, the political differences of Americans were temporarily forgotten as the country came together. US flags appeared everywhere, flying from cars, hanging from bridges and buildings, including my house. The need to fight back in the defense of the nation was overwhelming.

From 9-11 to the Iraq War

But the most compelling characteristic of this fight was that the enemy was not easily identifiable, so much so that Osama ben Laden himself had avoided the full force of US intelligence resources for almost ten years. The US public’s unfortunate support for the invasion of Iraq two years later – despite little evidence that Iraq had any involvement in supporting terrorism or was even a threat to America – was emblematic of how America’s frustrations needed a target to alleviate its pain. American military recruiters now had an easy time to get young men to sign up for a stint in the US Army without the need for conscription because many of them thought they were fighting the good fight in the “war on terror” as they left for Iraq. More than 5000 never returned.

I watched disapprovingly at the relentless campaign by the Bush administration to gain support for the invasion of Iraq from an American public that was easily swayed in this post-911 environment. Any accurate assessment of the so-called Iraqi threat seemed to dissipate in the wind. The CIA’s objections were smothered and those in the Pentagon who objected were either ignored or dismissed. The investigation by ex-ambassador Joe Wilson of a so-called nuclear threat supposedly evidenced by Iraq’s purchase of nuclear materials was attacked and his CIA agent wife, Valerie Plame was “outed” by sources in the Vice President’s office. One of the few voices of opposition to the Iraq invasion by an elected official was a young Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, but little attention was given to him at that time. Journalists lacked the motivation and heart to oppose the invasion and the rest, as is said, is history.

Bush played the security card again in the 2004 elections to get re-elected, pitching the Democrats as weak on terrorism. Ten years later America is still in Afghanistan – a deceptively fast expedition that initially eliminated the Taliban -- and Iraq, despite increasing disinterest on the part of the American public, although most want to exit in a feasible manner.

Now the situation has been reversed. The Democrats can take responsibility for eliminating Ben Laden, a big disappointment for Republicans that will only be expressed in private. If the economy continues to improve, one wonders what compelling issue the Republicans can use to regain the White House.

Spontaneity

Waking to the news on May 2 that Osama Bin Laden had been killed, I was initially surprised at the spontaneous celebratory crowds in the early morning hours in Washington and New York. I guess I had forgotten the impact of what had happened ten years ago. I can see now how important spontaneity is: a true, clear, honest and immediate response of feelings and passions. It was spontaneity, after all, that sparked the events in Tunisia, then Egypt, toppling governments in weeks after years of repression. It was spontaneity that overcame what guerrilla movements, political groups and organizations could not do in decades in those countries, including Al Qaeda. One should never underestimate the meaning of a spontaneous demonstration, but fully absorb it. Nor should one give little value to the impact of nationalistic fervor.

This leads to the question of whether Bin Laden’s death will end a siege mentality after ten years of worrying over threats of terrorism. It will once again depend on the managing of the force of nationalism in the post- Bin Laden era. The answer is unclear. But President Obama shows no sign of mismanaging, if not abusing, American nationalism the way the Bush administration did. His absolute reluctance to be the lead participant in the NATO-run Libya operation is one example. The seemingly unending way the US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq turned out to be complex supports this view; Obama’s unique and original opposition to the Iraq war provides another source of optimism for competent leadership in the future.

Right vs. Wrong

The killing of Osama ben Laden was naturally more enthusiastically celebrated in America than elsewhere, as seen by television coverage on Monday morning coming from Qatar, England, France, Italy and Turkey. It was the CNN US commentators who were obviously caught up in the celebrations and covered them as the main story. It was as if a sleeping giant was awakened after a decade of slumber and had something to celebrate – a decade of Bin Laden videos, threats and pronouncements, color-coded terrorism warnings, and killings of innocent people regardless of religion or nationality.

America inherited a particular brand of puritan ethics from the British, a view of right and wrong that does not necessarily relate to religion. Getting back at Bin Laden was righting a horrible wrong. Burying him within 24 hours in adherence to Islamic values was also, it seems, a result of respect for right and wrong, a clear sign echoed by both Bush and Obama that the war on terror is unrelated to religion.

An event that motivates a nation as radically as this is tapping into a powerful force, perhaps the most powerful on earth. Such a force can have hard-to-imagine impacts on the human race, some good and others bad. As humans we should try to remain cognizant of the differences and not let politics interfere with discouraging the bad and supporting the good. Killing innocent people, ignoring past injustices, shooting demonstrators and protesters need to be universally recognized as bad by all countries regardless of politics Too much is at stake to do otherwise.