Chairman Oktay Eksi's presentation at the International Sympozium organized by Azerbaijan Press Council on 15 December 2006 in Baku

Mr. Chairman,
Distinguished Delegates,

Let me start my presentation by thanking Mr.Aflatun Amashow and his staff for bringing us together for this Conference.

I will take as little of your time as possible and confine my presentation only to explaining the establishment and activities of our Press Council.

Active journalists of Istanbul established the Press Council in February 1988, with the aim of "creating a more free and more respectable press".

It is a voluntary body with:
16 Nationally delivered dailies,
7 Nation-wide TV channels
21 Journalistic Associations,
2104 Self-employed journalists.

According to our constitution, membership of the Council depends entirely on the concerned media outlet or individual journalist. Thus journalists and media organs, (magazines, news agencies, radio and television networks) and press establishments (associations and trade unions of the media) who promise to abide by the Professional Principles of the Press and who are determined to defend these values, may become members of the Council based on their free will.

We have a body called the “Supreme Council” which adjudicates complaints.

The number of members in the Supreme Council may differ according to the composition of member media organs namely newspapers, TV channels, radio networks and news agencies. We currently have 34 members, composed of 12 readership representatives, 10 elected journalists and 12 representatives of media outlets and Associations, including the Association of Media Owners.

In the first year of 1988, we received no complaints – due to the fact that we had no money, no office, and no staff.

In the following year, we received only 9 complaints.

Now we get around 150 complaints a year.

The Supreme Council of the Press Council evaluates complaints concerning the violation of the Professional Principles of Press.

Furthermore, the Supreme Council is also expected to process the applications by the journalists who want an evaluation of any form of attack on their professional practice.

In Turkey, any person can file a complaint with the Press Council against any journalist or newspaper or other media outlet, including web sites, provided the time limit of two months is observed.

We do not deal solely with the complaints and implementation of the Code of Professional Ethics. In fact, our primary occupation is to deal with problems concerning the freedom of expression and the – so-called –freedom of the press.

According to our understanding, “Freedom can not be called freedom if it is granted and left to the mercy of others. In particular, the freedom of expression can only be attained and defended through daily struggle.”

That is why the founding members have declared in the preamble of the "Professional Principles of the Press" that:

“We hereby declare at our own free will that we shall defy any attempt by lawmakers or any other persons or organizations to curtail the freedom of communications, and we openly state that we consider the observance of the rules of Professional Principles of the Press a necessity of our basic convictions.”

Some cases regarding the freedom of expression in Turkey have been widely publicised in Turkey. It hasn’t been only the prominent writer and Nobel Laureate Mr.Orhan Pamuk who has been prosecuted for breaching Article 301 of the Penal Code, but some other writers and publishers as well.

The official aim of the article is to protect the nation, the state and some organs of the state such as the judiciary or armed forces from slanderous attacks by the press.

We assert that this and other articles in the Penal Code are in need of amendment.

Unfortunately, it isn’t only the text of the article, but also its interpretation and implementation by the Public Prosecutors in a way that which creates a problem for all.

Those who have been prosecuted have all been acquitted so far.

In addition to speaking out for the freedom of expression, the Press Council has also prepared and submitted a motion to the government. We hope it will to be taken into account when the article is amended.

In fact, we declared that, “if the new penal code is not changed soon, the corridors of court-houses and prisons in Turkey will be filled with journalists; and Turkey will once again be among the world’s third class countries.”

I have also sent an open letter to the Prime Minister of Turkey saying:

“History is full of innumerable cases of efforts to silence the people who are trying to express the facts and their opinions… But there are even more examples of how these attempts proved to be in vain. Because there isn’t a single example of such an attempt that has succeeded.“

I simply wanted to draw a picture of our Press Council and give you some examples of the situation in my country, to make it easy for you to understand what is going on in Turkey.

Thank you all...

..........

Chairman Oktay Eksi's presentation at the International Sympozium organized by Azerbaijan Press Council on 16 December 2006 in Baku

Mr.Chairman,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me start my presentation with two questions that need to be answered:

1-Is there a remedy for those who claim that unfair attacks or un-sustained stories of the trans-national media have been detrimental to them? 2- If a mechanism were created to adjudicate on a voluntary basis, would it damage democracy and Freedom of Expression?”

These questions have been widely discussed in the media in recent years.

As I have already claimed, a problem of this kind still exists, waiting to be solved:

It was the very first time that an Indian journalist, Mr. H. K. Dua, then Editor-in-Chief of the Indian Express daily, asked a question to the panellists of the 44th General Assembly and World Congress of the International Press Institute held in Seoul in May 1995. Mr.Dua said:

“Dailies, magazines, and radio and television broadcasting across borders do not merely provide cultural transformation. They also end up committing an unjustified and audacious aggression against the individuals they target via the false news and other material which they publish in contradiction with basic professional principles.

I wonder if it is not possible to set up a mechanism, whose goal would be to audit ourselves in order that such aggression may be avoided?”

None of the panellists could give a satisfactory answer to Mr. Dua’s question.

Mr.Dua’s question was brought up by the Turkish Press Council in a WAPC meeting in Helsinki in early June of the same year. The idea was, “Is it possible to establish a voluntary mechanism that would deal with the complaints concerning internationally delivered print media outlets, radios, TV channels and other media?”

We proposed a mechanism based on the voluntary cooperation of the concerned parties.

This proposal was received with interest and included in the agenda, despite the objection of the delegates from Austria, Cyprus and Finland.

In March 1996, The Turkish Press Council organized a “round-table” meeting in Istanbul. At this point, Prof. David Flint, then Chairman of WAPC, presented a “proposal” to the Round Table.

Some participants, such as the late Lord Oliver McGregor (then President of WAPC) and IPI Director Johann Fritz, objected.

Their objection was based on the fear that, “Such a mechanism might eventually come under the influence or pressure of governments, thus creating a system that would hinder the freedom of expression.”

At the same meeting, some participants questioned the possibility of setting up an “international code of ethics.”

The delegates who supported the proposal gave detailed information as to the advantages of such a mechanism. As an example, a program of a German TV Channel was brought to the meeting in which its claim that “Turkish peasants helping the PKK (THE KURDISH TERRORIST ORGANIZATION) in the Antalya mountains” (A WELL KNOWN TOURISM DESTINATION IN ANATOLIA) was proven to be an absolute lie.

In fact, this program had been fabricated in Greece.

In addition, the attention of some delegates was drawn to documentaries claimed to have been shot in the Kashmir area, when in fact they were taken in the Bosnian war.

The crucial meeting was the Istanbul World Conference of WAPC in September 1998.

This proposal was the main item of the agenda.

At this point, Mr. Ronald Koven, The European Representative of World Press Freedom Committee, who was against the idea, started a campaign to kill the proposal. He was able to convince some prominent participants.

Mr. Edward Seaton, then President of ASNE, was also against the idea.

As a matter of fact, we could not make them understand that:

• As transnational broadcasting and publishing of that kind is a common practice in a global society, no one can resist the need for regulation for long. The point is, regulation must meet the needs of a democratic society and truly for the freedom of communication. That is why the best way to prevent governments from intervening in the press world is to create a mechanism of this kind.

• It is certainly much better and safer for us to do this, creating a voluntary mechanism, which – I underline again – would be a staunch defender of freedom of expression and the press.

• No one has ever claimed that an “Internationally applicable Code of Ethics for the Media” is a must. When Prof. Dr. David Flint defended the idea of establishing a Voluntary Mechanism for transactional complaints, he said that:

• The alternative to this is “to allow injustice to continue.”

• If we create such a mechanism, it would be “A response to the growing loss of confidence in the media.”

• It would provide a balance of power vis-a-vis the Government.

• And it would be a response to globalisation. When he was explaining his views, he emphasized that:

Quote:

“We live in a world where national boundaries seem to be evaporating. At least in the field of communications and the media (…).

We shall have newspapers without frontiers. We shall have radio without frontiers. We shall have television without frontiers. We do not want to propose control beyond frontiers.

Should we not equally enjoy an opportunity to respond across frontiers?

Should we not expect accuracy and fairness across frontiers?

Should we not therefore extend the working market place of ideas, across national frontiers?” Un-quote

As it is clear, there were numerous contradictory views on this question. Also some –like Mr. Ronald Koven- claimed that it was about establishing a tribunal, which really had nothing to do with the idea. As this was another point in the debate, let me summarize how this mechanism would work:

The main object of the mechanism was to mediate first, as Prof. David Flint once suggested:

If the question cannot be resolved through mediation, then it would adjudicate and declare its opinion.

The mechanism would ensure that, in respect to any complaint, local remedies would be exhausted first.

There would have to be a formula for selecting the admissible complaints. The “ad hoc” committees would hear and adjudicate on the complaints.

These would not only be complaints about the media, but also complaints about conduct against the media.

Also a Freedom Committee could monitor legal and political restrictions to ensure that the restrictions would be acceptable in a civilized and democratic society.

Complaints could be evaluated, conforming to “general guidelines” of law and “free and responsible” journalism, sustained by the practices of the International Court of Justice and the Quebec Press Council.

At the Istanbul Conference, three Working Groups were established.

The Working Groups studied all views expressed in this question. But the opposition was such that, WAPC decided to remove this proposal from its agenda until appropriate conditions are reached.

Now may I ask:

If we could succeed in establishing such a mechanism, would the Danish Caricature of September 2005 have hurt all the concerned parties to such an extent?

I leave the answer up to you…

Thank you…