Tag: Media Control

  • Turkey’s EU Hopes Could Free Media

    Newspapers on sale in Istanbul. But the freedom of Turkish journalists is seriously threatened. Credit: Jillian Kestler-D’Amours/IPS.

    ISTANBUL, Feb 1 2013 (IPS) – As negotiations in Turkey’s efforts to join the European Union remain stalled, many worry that the Turkish government has little incentive to curb its ongoing crackdown on media freedoms and freedom of expression.

    “Reviving Turkey’s accession process to the EU is crucially relevant to press freedom in the country for the simple reason that the process provides the government with a fundamental incentive to make progress,” wrote former European ambassador to Turkey Marc Pierini in a policy paper for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    “The EU needs a prosperous, stable and democratic Turkey irrespective of whether it is a member, a strategic ally, or a neighbour. More importantly, it needs a Turkey that is at peace with itself and manages coexistence and tolerance between various strands of its society,” Pierini wrote.

    In recent years, local and international human rights groups have condemned the Turkish government under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his Justice and Development Party (AKP), for placing severe restrictions on media freedoms, and, in particular, for jailing large numbers of journalists.

    According to a report from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) titled Turkey’s Press Freedom Crisis, Turkey imprisoned the largest number of journalists in the world in 2012, ahead of Iran, Eritrea and China.

    In August alone, 76 Turkish reporters were in imprisoned; 70 percent of these were Kurdish citizens of the state. Many journalists were charged for their coverage of the banned Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, which Turkey deems a terrorist group.

    “Authorities have imprisoned journalists on a mass scale on terrorism or anti-state charges, launched thousands of other criminal prosecutions on charges such as denigrating Turkishness or influencing court proceedings, and used pressure tactics to sow self-censorship,” CPJ stated.

    In response, Turkish Justice Minister Sadullah Ergin called the allegations included in the CPJ report “exaggerated” and stated that criticism of press freedom in Turkey was being used as a political tool against the government.

    “We, as the Government, would not want any single person, whether a journalist or not, to be victimised because of their thoughts or expressions,” Ergin wrote. “Turkey is making an effort to strike the right balance between preventing the praising of violence and terrorist propaganda, and the need to expand freedom of speech.”

    Still, many have pointed to Turkey’s flawed penal code as a major factor in suppressing freedom of the press. The country’s vague anti-terror legislation – writing an article can lead journalists to be accused of belonging to, or aiding, a terrorist group, for example – has been especially condemned.

    According to Hugh Pope, a researcher on Turkey at the International Crisis Group (ICG), the upcoming fourth judicial reform package which the Turkish government is expected to unveil shortly must address this problematic definition of terrorism.

    “The definition of terrorism is completely out of sync with the European norm and it has to change,” Pope told IPS. “It’s absolutely essential to adjust the definition of terrorism to something that is more rational and thereby allow the release of several thousand people currently in jail on terrorist charges that wouldn’t be considered to be terrorists anywhere else in Europe.”

    Turkey was declared eligible to join the European Union in 1997, and accession negotiations began in 2005. The process has been stalled since 2006, however, largely due to Turkey’s conflict with Cyprus over Turkish control of half the island territory.

    “It doesn’t help that in Europe, Turkey is perceived as a gagger of the press, but I think that’s not the main problem. The main problem is the major European reservations about Turkey,” Pope added. “But if Turkey had a more defensible media scene, that would make Turkey seem more European.”

    Last year, the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) launched a solidarity campaign for imprisoned Turkish journalists, called “Set Turkish Journalists Free”. EFJ representatives also attended court hearings in Turkey in solidarity with the jailed reporters.

    “It is very important (for Turkish journalists) to feel that they are not isolated, (that) they are not alone. The visits to the court hearings have shown enormous support,” EFJ director Renate Schroeder told IPS.

    “All journalists know what it is to want to write the truth even though we all know how difficult it is. Just to be critical, that’s why you are a journalist. There is a real bond and solidarity,” Schroeder said.

    In its last progress report on Turkey’s EU accession aspirations released in October, the European Commission said while space exists for debating sensitive issues, and opposition views are expressed in Turkey, the state’s reforms on freedom of expression fall short.

    It stated that the arrests and imprisonment of journalists, the application of the state’s anti-terror legislation, and high-ranking government and army officials who have launched cases against journalists are the most pressing problems.

    “All of this, combined with a high concentration of the media in industrial conglomerates with interests going far beyond the free circulation of information and ideas, has a chilling effect and limits freedom of expression in practice, while making self-censorship a common phenomenon in the Turkish media,” the Commission found. (END)

  • Turkey tired of ‘government controlled’ media

    Turkey tired of ‘government controlled’ media

    A growing number of young Turks are turning to social media, complaining that mainstream media are being increasingly controlled by the government.

    fb

    Sitting in a busy cafe in downtown Istanbul, Hale holds her Blackberry, while sipping tea, and checks the latest events in Turkey.

    “I am trying not to use the phone to check Twitter,” says Hale, “I only check for hot news, or something urgent, mostly there is in Turkey. But I check newspaper sites less now because I get most of my information from Twitter.”

    “You have blogs, you have news sites. So, I don’t care what the mainstream media does,” she says.

    Hale is part of a growing phenomenon, according to media and Internet expert, Associate Professor Yaman Akdeniz, of Istanbul’s Bilgi University.

    Akdeniz claims the media is increasingly seen as under the thumb of the government since its third successive landslide victory last year.

    “Since the elections,” says Akdeniz, “we can feel that the media is not directly but indirectly controlled by the government.”

     

    Associate Professor Yaman Akdeniz, Bilgi University, IstanbulAssoc. Prof. Yaman Akdeniz

    Human rights groups say there are currently over a hundred journalists in prison in Turkey. The government disputes this. But the country is witnessing an explosion in social media. The combination has seen social media becoming a powerful rival to mainstream news.

    “We witness self censorship and self-policing by television channels and also newspapers,” Akdeniz told DW. “This has resulted in the society turning to other forms of news gathering from social media, and people have started to act as journalists themselves.”

    Mobile frontrunner

    Turkey is among the region’s frontrunners in developing mobile telephony and internet access. Coupled with a young and net savvy population the result is a social media boom. Currently there are nearly 30 million Facebook users and 4 million tweeters – 4th and 8th respectively in the world.

    The power of social media as a news provider was gained a lot of ground but an even stronger confirmation came last December.

    On the night of December 29, 2011, 35 Turkish-Kurd civilians were killed in a botched Turkish airstrike aimed at the Kurdish rebel group, the PKK. The attack occurred in Uludere (Sirnak) on the mountainous Turkish Iraqi border. Similar incidents in the past were often covered up by the military in a veil of secrecy. But not this time.

     

    People look at bodies on the ground after Turkey's air force mistakenly killed 35 civilians in Uludere (Sirnak) Images like this were circulated within moments of the Uludere airstrike via social media

    Despite its isolated location, within hours of the attack graphic photos of the victims were posted on Twitter by local Kurds, closely followed by statements from family members.

    The news spread quickly, helped by Tweet activists like Cigdem Mater.

    “It was so weird – all the journalists, who are so active in Twitter, but who are also in the mainstream media, were saying, Oh, my God, none of the mainstream media is speaking about it,” said Mater. “But if Twitter did not exist, I am sure we would hear about it like 2 or 3 days later. And we will never know much about it.”

    The lightening speed with which the information spread out of the rugged mountainous region was made possible by widespread fast 3G coverage – a legacy of the Turkish army’s decades-long campaign against the PKK rebels in the predominantly Kurdish southeast. Even though this is one of Turkey’s poorest and most rural regions, it has a well developed communications network because the security forces relied heavily on mobile phones for communication.

    Mobile competition

    Ferocious competition by mobile phone operators completes the picture.

    With mobile phone operators offering cheap smart phones, nearly a quarter of the country’s mobile phone users now own a smart phone.

    That reach extends to the impoverished Kurdish South East.

    “Major phones companies provide free cell phones and Facebook and Twitter service to the cell phone users. And many of the kids, starting from 12 year olds to 23 year olds have cell phones,” Berke Bas, a lecturer in media studies at Istanbul’s Bilgi University told DW.

     

    Berke Bas, media studies lecturer, Bilgi University, IstanbulBerke Bas, lecturer in media studies

    Bas, who is working on a project on Kurdish youth, says social media has become a powerful tool for Kurds.

    “I think it’s a very important source of news for them,” said Bas. “Because Turkish media has no interest and real inquiry into the dynamics in the southeast, or the demands of these people and what they are reacting against, and this builds an incredible anger.”

    “But I think we should still be able to rely on mainstream media because social media creates its own small communities where you don’t interact – what is definitely needed in this country is Turks and Kurds getting to know each other,” Bas said.

    The fear that social media could exacerbate a polarization in Turkish society is growing concern for Bas’ colleague Associate Professor Akdeniz.

    “Polarization is going to be a huge problem in social media and it will be difficult to address,” Akdeniz said. “Turkey is divided along ethnic, religious, social and political lines.”

     

    But Akdeniz fears the government may turn to the wrong solutions.

    “Censorship is not a solution, or filtering or blocking these sites, but I think the next level will involve prosecutions and they will start going after people,” said Akdeniz. “Then perhaps people might worry about using these micro blogging sites or social media platforms. We should resolve these tensions through education.”

    Turkey is considered one of the world’s worst offenders for blocking internet sites.

    It blocked YouTube for 2 years and has threatened to block Facebook. But Twitter and similar sites have proved notoriously difficult to block. Turkey’s netizens are proving adept at circumventing bans and blocks, or often hiding behind protected Twitter identities.

    Author: Dorian Jones, Istanbul
    Editor: Zulfikar Abbany

    https://www.dw.com/en/turkey-tired-of-government-controlled-media/a-15936694

  • Turkey profile

    Turkey profile

    60088294 turkey newspapers afp getty

    The military, Kurds and political Islam are sensitive topics for journalists

    Turkey’s airwaves are lively, with some 300 private TV stations – more than a dozen of them with national coverage – and more than 1,000 private radio stations competing with the state broadcaster, TRT. Television is by far the most influential news medium.

    Powerful businesses operate many of the press and broadcasting outlets; they include the Dogan group, the leading media conglomerate.

    For journalists, the military, Kurds and political Islam are highly-sensitive topics, coverage of which can lead to arrest and prosecution. Rights groups say journalists have been imprisoned, or attacked by police. It is also common for radio and TV stations to have their broadcasts suspended for airing sensitive material.

    Some of the most repressive sanctions have been lifted as part of reforms intended to pave the way for EU entry. But under Article 301 of the penal code, it remains a crime to insult the Turkish nation.

    TRT has introduced broadcasts in Kurdish, banned for many years, under reforms intended to meet EU criteria on minorities. Kurdish-language TRT 6 TV launched in 2009. Some overseas-based Kurdish TVs broadcast via satellite.

    Istanbul is the media capital, hosting the main press outlets. The city is home to some 40 major dailies with nationwide reach and 30 provincial publications.

    Around 35 million Turks were online by June 2010 (Internetworldstats). Websites are subject to blocking. These have included YouTube, which was banned over videos deemed to be insulting to the founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk. However, circumvention techniques and technologies are widely used. Facebook attracts more than 22 million users.

    via BBC News – Turkey profile – Media.

  • Is Rupert Murdoch ignorant or an agent of Zionist deception?

    Is Rupert Murdoch ignorant or an agent of Zionist deception?

    Rupert MurdochIn a recent speech at an ADL (Anti-Defamation League) dinner, Rupert Murdoch, arguably the most influential mainstream media chief on Planet Earth, made some extraordinary statements which must be challenged. But first it’s necessary for us all to be clear about what ADL’s role is.

    Its proclaimed objective is to “fight anti-Semitism”. In reality its main purpose under the leadership of Abe Foxman is to smear, harass, silence and preferably destroy those of all faiths and none who are critical of Zionism in action – critical of Israel’s policies in general and its contempt for international law in particular; and critical of the awesome power of the Zionist lobby, in America especially.

    In his speech Murdoch said his own perspective on the evil of anti-Semitism was “simple”. He put it this way (my emphasis added):

    “We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews. For the first decades after Israel’s founding, this war was conventional in nature.The goal was straightforward – to use military force to overrun Israel.”

    That was Murdoch’s carefully understated way of endorsing Zionism’s assertion that for the first decades of its life Israel lived in danger of annihilation, the “driving into the sea” of its Jews. As I document in detail through the three volumes of the American edition of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Israel’s existence was never, ever, in danger from any combination of Arab force. Zionism’s assertion to the contrary was the cover that allowed Israel to get away where it mattered most (in America and Western Europe) with presenting its aggression as self-defense and itself as the victim when, actually, it was and is the oppressor.

    The main event during the period in which Murdoch asserted that the Arabs were trying to “overrun” Israel was the 1967 war. Zionism’s story of it, which the mainstream media still peddles to this day, is that Israel went to war either because the Arabs attacked first or were intending to attack. Both, the either and the or, are Zionist propaganda nonsense. It was a war of Israeli aggression.

    I don’t expect Murdoch to pay any attention to what the Gentile me has to say on the subject, but if he is not an agent of Zionist deception (i.e. if he is merely ignorant), he ought to consider what various Israeli leaders have said. I quote them in America Takes Sides, War With Nasser Act II and the Creation of Greater Israel, Chapter 1 of Volume Three the American edition of my book, which is sub-titled Conflict Without End?

    I preface the quotes of Israeli leaders with this observation.

    “If the statement that the Arabs were not intending to attack Israel and that the existence of the Jewish state was not in danger was only that of a goy, it could be dismissed by Zionists as anti-Semitic conjecture. In fact the truth the statement represents was admitted by some of the key Israeli players – after the war, of course. Before we look at what actually happened in 1967 and why, here is a short summary of some pertinent, post-war Israeli confessions.”

    In an interview published in Le Monde on 28 February 1968, Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin said this: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”

    On 14 April 1971, a report in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmarcontained the following statement by Mordecai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government. “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”

    On 4 April 1972, General Haim Bar-Lev, Rabin’s predecessor as chief of staff, was quoted in Ma’ariv as follows: “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Days war, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”

    In the same Israeli newspaper on the same day, General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations during the war and a nephew of Chaim Weizman, was quoted as saying: “There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.”

    In the spring of 1972, General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, addressed a political literary club in Tel Aviv. He said: “The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.” In a radio debate Peled said: “Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel.” He added that “Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”

    In the same program Chaim Herzog (former DMI, future Israeli Ambassador to the UN and President of his state) said: “There was no danger of annihilation. Neither Israeli headquarters nor the Pentagon – as the memoirs of President Johnson proved – believed in this danger.”

    On 3 June 1972 Peled was even more explicit in an article of his own for Le Monde. He wrote: “All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defense’ against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.”

    The preference of some generals for truth-telling after the event provoked something of a debate in Israel, but it was short-lived. If some Israeli journalists had had their way, the generals would have kept their mouths shut. Weizman was one of those approached with the suggestion that he and others who wanted to speak out should “not exercise their inalienable right to free speech lest they prejudice world opinion and the Jewish diaspora against Israel.”

    It is not surprising that debate in Israel was shut down before it led to some serious soul-searching about the nature of the state and whether it should continue to live by the lie as well as the sword; but it is more than remarkable, I think, that the mainstream Western media continues to prefer the convenience of the Zionist myth to the reality of what happened in 1967 and why. When reporters and commentators have need today to make reference to the Six Days War, they still tell it like the Zionists said it was in 1967 rather than how it really was. Obviously there are still limits to how far the mainstream media is prepared to go in challenging the Zionist account of history, but it could also be that lazy journalism is a factor in the equation.

    For those journalists, lazy or not, who might still have doubts about who started the Six Days War, here’s a quote from what Prime Minister Begin said in an unguarded, public moment in 1982. “In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

    My own favourite Israeli quote is the one I use to draw the Prologue to Volume One of my book to a conclusion. In 1980 I had a number of conversations with the best and the brightest of Israel’s Directors of Military Intelligence, Major General (then retired) Shlomo Gazit. Over coffee one morning I said to him: “I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s all a myth. Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger.” He replied: “The trouble with us Israelis is that we’ve become the victims of our own propaganda.”

    In his speech to the ADL dinner, Murdoch said that phase two of the “ongoing war against the Jews” (after the failure to “overrun” Israel by force) was “terrorism” He seems to have no idea of reality on this front either.

    One of a number of summary truths about terrorism is this. In Palestine that became Israel, it was the Zionists who turned to terrorism first – to drive out the occupying British and then the indigenous Arabs.

    Murdoch spoke of the terrorists targeting Israelis at home and broad – “from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada.” Fact: All but two of the Israeli athletes in Munich were killed by German security forces after Israeli Defense Minister Dayan insisted, against Prime Minister Golda Meir’s own best judgement, on a shoot-out to prevent a negotiated end to the hostage drama. Fact: The second intifada, which PLO Chairman Arafat was doing his best to prevent, was provoked by Ariel Sharon to improve his prospects of becoming prime minister by seeing off a challenge from Netanyahu.

    A second summary truth about Palestinian terrorism is this. The Palestinians were not and are not “at war with the Jews”. Black September’s Munich operation, for example, was terrorism for a public relations purpose – to draw the attention of the world to the fact that the Palestinians existed, were occupied and oppressed and in need of some justice.

    A summary truth about general Arab and wider Muslim terrorism is this. It is primarily a response of the weak and oppressed to Israel’s arrogance of power and insufferable self-righteousness; to the impotence, corruption and repression of Arab and other Muslim regimes which are correctly regarded by their masses as little more than puppets of America-and-Zionism; and to the deadly double-standard of Western foreign policy – in particular its unconditional support for Israel right or wrong. (In at least one respect the Arab and other Muslim masses have much more wisdom than Western leaders. They, Arab and Muslims masses, know that unconditional support for Israel right or wrong is not in anybody’s best interests, not even those of Israel’s Jews).

    According to Murdoch “the war against the Jews” has now entered a new phase. “This,” he said, “is the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by delegitimizing it. The battleground is everywhere – the media… multinational organizations … NGOs. In this war, the aim is to make Israel a pariah.”

    It is true that in the eyes of many if not most peoples of the world (and probably many of their governments behind closed doors) Israel is increasingly being seen as a pariah state. But that’s a consequence of Israel’s policies and actions, war crimes and all.

    What Murdoch sees as the rise of anti-Semitism is, in fact, the rise of anti-Israelism. The danger for the Jews of the world is that it will be transformed into violent anti-Semitism at a foreseeable point in the future if the Zionist state is not called and held to account for its past crimes and is allowed by the major powers to go on committing new ones.

    It is a fact that prior to the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, most Jews were opposed to Zionism’s colonial enterprise. One of their fears was that Zionism would one day provoke anti-Semitism if it was allowed by the big powers to have its way. As I never tire of writing and saying, this fear was given a fresh airing by Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving Director of Military Intelligence. In 1986 he published a remarkable book, Israel’s Fateful Hour. It contains this warning (my emphasis added):

    Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.

    Nearly a quarter of a century on I think it can and should be said that Israel’s “misconduct” has become the prime factor in the equation that could transform anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism.

    If I had the opportunity to address Mr. Murdoch directly, I would say to him the following. If you really care about the Jews (I mean the Jews as people as opposed to their money), you would put your media empire at the service of the truth of history.

    I would also tell him that when I joined ITN (Independent Television News) as a very young reporter many years ago, its great editor-in-chief, Geoffrey Cox, gave me the mission statement in one short sentence. “Our job is to help keep democracy alive.”

    I would then say to Murdoch that my charge today is (generally speaking) that the mainstream media has betrayed democracy. And I would add, “You, sir, are the greatest betrayer, traitor, of them all.”

    http://www.alanhart.net/is-rupert-murdoch-ignorant-or-an-agent-of-zionist-deception/#more-1309, October 30, 2010

  • Who is Axel Springer?

    Who is Axel Springer?

    Reconciliation between Jews and Germans

    Bound together in friendship: Commitment to the reconciliation between Jews and Germans

    Axel Springer, who founded his company in 1946, had a very close friendship with the State of Israel and the Israeli people. The reconciliation between Jews and Germans and standing up for the vital rights of the Israeli people were fundamental convictions for him, which governed his actions and which became manifest in the Essentials of his publishing house .

    The company and its employees remain true to these principles even today and continue the traditional friendship with multifarious commitment.

    Thus in 2003 for example, the “Ernst-Cramer-Fellowship” was established, which grants young German journalists a working stay in Israel and young Israeli journalists a working stay in Germany. More Information on the Ernst Cramer Fellowship can be found at the website of the International Journalists’ Programmes .

    Moreover Axel Springer supports institutions and projects to cultivate Jewish life in Germany and to intensify contacts between Germany and Israel.

    The Spree-Aviv.de website illustrates how even young Axel Springer employees live the commitment to Israel as a matter of course: For this tribute was paid to young trainee journalists from the Axel Springer Academy in May 2008 for the web project www.spree-aviv.de which they had initiated and designed themselves. The independent jury of experts in the Internet category of the Axel Springer Prize for young journalists valued their project as an “outstanding service”, because the website brings the user closer to Jewish life in Germany in a particular appealing and entertaining way at the same time making an important contribution to the reconciliation between Germans and Jews.

    Source:  http://www.axelspringer.de/en/artikel/Reconciliation-between-Jews-and-Germans_40889.html