|
PRESENTATION OF OKTAY EKÞÝ
(Chairman of the Turkish Press Council)
AT THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM IN NEW DELHI
Mr. Chairman,
Distinguished Delegates,
Let me start my presentation by thanking to Justice G.N.RAY and his staff for
bringing us together on such an historical occasion, namely the 40th anniversary
of the Press Council of India...
I will use the time spared for my presentation to focus on two points: One is
the Press Council of Turkey, and its’ activities plus question of freedom of
expression in my country,
The other one is an un finished story of establishing a voluntary and self
regulated mechanism for the trans-national publications and broadcast.
Let me start from the first:
Our Press Council in Turkey established by the working journalists in
February 1988. It is a voluntary body with:
16 nationally delivered dailies,
7 nation-wide TV channels
21 Journalistic Associations,
2104 individual –means working- journalists.
We have a body called “Supreme Council” which adjudicates the complaints.
Although the number of its members may differ in practice the Supreme Council
consists of 12 readership representetatives, 10 elected journalists and 12
representatives of media outlets and Associations.
In the first year of 1988 we did not get any complaint due to the fact that
we had no money, no office, no staff. In the following year of 1989 the number
was only 9. Now we get around 150 complaints per year,
We are not dealing with the complaints and implementation of Code of
Professional Ethics only. Our main occupation is to deal with the problems
related to the freedom of expression and freedom of –so called- press as well.
In fact recent cases of that kind are widely publicised. Not only a prominent
writer and Nobel Laurite Mr.Orhan Pamuk but some writers and publishers too
prosecuted for breaching the article 301 of the Penal Code. Officially aim of
the article is to protect the nation, the state and some organs of the sate like
judiciary or the armed forces from slanderous attacks by the press. Although not
only this article but some others as well are in need of amendment, also it has
been interpreted and implemented by the Public Prosecutors in a way that, it
creates problem for all. The result till now is, those who has been prosecuted
are all acquitted. We as the press council not only protested all these but also
prepared and submitted a motion to the government for it to be taken into
consideration when the article is amended.
There are many more example of this kind but let me come to the other point
which is not as local as this but it is a kind of problem that involves us all.
***
“Is there a remedy for those who claim that unfair attacks or un-sustained
stories of the transnational media have been detrimental to them? Or If a
mechanism were created to adjudicate on voluntary basis, would it damage
democracy and Freedom of Communication (Freedom of Expression and Press)?”
These questions have been widely discussed by the media world in recent
years. But they are still far from being answered..
I would like to relate a story of such an attempt and draw your attention to
a problem that still exists and awaits to be solved . :
It was the very first time that an Indian journalist, Mr. H. K. Dua, then
Editor-in-Chief of Indian Express daily, asked a question to the panelists of
the 44th General Assembly and World Congress of the International Press
Institute held in Seoul in May 1995, who said::
“Dailies, magazines, radio and television broadcasting across the borders do
not merely provide cultural transformation. But they also end up in 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 panelists 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
about 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, in the name of
Working Group –which was established in August 1995 Colombo meeting of WAPC-
presented a “proposal” to the Round Table.
Some participants like 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 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 where “ Turkish peasants helping the PKK (THE KURDISH
TERRORIST ORGANIZATION) in the Antalya mountains” (A WELL KNOWN TOURISM
DESTINATION IN ANATOLIA) was proven to be absolute lie.
In fact, this program had been fabricated in Greece.
Also, the attention of some delegates was drawn to documentaries claimed to
have been shot in the Kashmir area, whereas they were actually taken in the
Bosnian war.
Finally the Working Group was assigned to:
* Study the attitude of organizations that carry transnational broadcast or
printed matter upon receipt of such complaints.
* Publish the results of these studies.
The crucial meeting was the Istanbul Conference of WAPC that was held in
September 1998.
It was crucial because the question (or proposal) was the main topic of the
agenda and all concerned parties were invited.
At this point, a certain gentleman called Mr. Ronald Koven, The European
Representative of World Press Freedom Committee, who was against the idea of
creating a mechanism of this kind, from the very beginning, started a campaign
to kill the proposal. He –I understand- convinced some prominent journalists
like Rosemary Righter of London Times and some professional organizations like
American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE).
Mr. Edward Seaton, then President of ASNE wrote that, “They (WAPC and its
supporters) are going out into deep water, and it is water that they shouldn’t
be swimming in.”
ASNE’s Executive Director then, Mr. Lee Stinnet accused the organizers
(namely the Turkish Press Council and WAPC) of “trying to devise yet another
collar for the press.”
Rony Koven wrote to me in his letter of 12 June 1998, to remind “the long
standing objection of WPFC” to the proposal. His points were:
• The very existence of such a mechanism would be “a standing invitation for
proposals to make its rulings mandatory, under international law, which had
nothing to do with the international law.
• In many democratic countries, including France and the United States, where
the press is generally acknowledged to be among the world’s freest, has rejected
the idea of organizing a national press council, let alone the global creation
of an association of national councils.
• The very existence of an “International Code of Ethics for the Media”
voluntary or not, would inevitably be used by governments against the press.
As a matter of fact, we could not make Mr.Koven understand that:
• As transnational broadcast and publishing of that kind is a common practice
in a global society. No one can resist the need of 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 of preventing
governments from intervening in the press world is to create a mechanism of this
kind.
• It is certainly much better and safer to do this by ourselves and create a
voluntary mechanism which –I underline again- would be a staunch defender of
freedom of communication (freedom of expression and press).
• No one has ever claimed that an “Internationally applicable Code of Ethics
for the Media” is a must. As once Prof. David Flint then Chairman of WAPC,
pointed out, “A voluntary mechanism for transnational media complaints, would
act like the Quebec Press Council” which is re-known for not having a written
Code of Ethics.
In fact, when Prof. Dr. David Flint defended the idea of establishing a
Voluntary Mechanism for transnational complaints, he said that:
• Alternate 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 balance the power of the concerned Government.
• And it would be a response to globalization.
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 had really 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 can not 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 “ad hoc” complaints committees
to hear and adjudicate 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 were those necessary in a civilized and democratic
society.
It could select the world’s best example in relation to freedom of
communication, and argue that this would apply to other interested countries.
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.
Eventually WAPC decided to remove this proposal from it’s agenda until
appropriate conditions are established.
Now may I ask:
If we could succeed in establishing such a mechanism, would the Danish
Caricature of September 2005, hurt all the concerned parties to such an extent?
I leave the answer to be brought up you all…
Thank you…
|
