Turkish state media accused of concealing reality of mass anti-Erdogan protests
As thousands rally in the streets of Istanbul in mass demonstrations against the government, Turkish state media is accused of turning the other way and concealing the reality of the protests from the population.
Turkey has been rocked by seven days of widespread demonstrations against president Recep Rayyip Erdogan, following the arrest of his political rival and Istanbul mayor Ekrem Imamoglu. Tens of thousands have faced rubber bullets and tear gas from Turkish authorities, who have arrested around 1,100 people.
Pro-government cable channel NTV, according to the Guardian, has instead focused on finance minister Megmet Şimşek's efforts to stabilise the economy. State television, meanwhile, has shown Erdogan speaking of his government's achievements following an iftar dinner. No footage of the protests or interviews with the demonstrators were broadcast by either channel, opponents say.
Turkey's broadcasting watchdog RTUK on Saturday threatened to revoke the license of stations airing live coverage of the protests for 'biased' coverage - at which point some channels cut away from coverage of the clashes. But a few independent and opposition stations have had almost non-stop coverage.
'More than 90 per cent of the media in Turkey is directly or indirectly controlled by the palace,' Bülent Mumay, a journalist who was given a suspended sentence for publishing information in defiance of a government order in 2023, told The Independent.
'The remaining independent media face legal and financial pressure from the state,' Mr Mumay, who works for German outlet Deutsche Welle, added. 'One of the reasons why citizens take to the streets is that they cannot see their problems in the media. They participate in the Imamoğlu protests partly to show their own problems and to express their rebellion.'
Press freedom has not deteriorated in Turkey, Mr Mumay said, because 'we do not have press freedom to deteriorate'.
Calling for a boycott of the TV stations and businesses failing to cover the protests, Ozgur Ozel, the chairman of Mr Imamoglu's Republican People's Party (CHP), said the party is 'taking note of every television channel that ignores this moment'.
He accused the advertisers on the channels of 'serving (Erdogan's) palace' while catering to opposition voters. "This is not just about not watching their channels - whoever buys their products is complicit," Mr Ozel said.
Erol Onderoglu, the Turkey correspondent for Reporters Without Borders (RSF), says the journalist community in Turkey is 'extremely concerned' about the 'very serious shift to a mindset which is trying to get rid of critical media, and journalists reporting properly about political corruptions, clientelism, wrongdoings'.
'We are pursuing our effort to defend the remaining 15 per cent of remaining independent media in Turkey,' he added. 'Eighty five per cent is already controlled by the government, by ideological affiliation, or by financial interest.'
People should 'not be surprised by this media polarisation and this toxic environment', Mr Onderoglu said. After Erdogan has taken control of much of corporate media ownership over the past two decades, media which is critical of the government has tried to become the 'mainstream media'.
'We have seen the main damage made in the media sector, to liquidate what we all call editorial independence. Political instruction to courts, political instruction to journalism circles, have deteriorated all kinds of justice in society.'
And it is not just Turkish television that is affected. The Turkish government has issued court orders to social media site X to shut down the accounts of more than 700 journalists, media outlets and activists - a move X has said it is fighting in court.
The Media and Law Studies Association, a civil society group, said 11 journalists who were detained for covering banned protests in Istanbul have been taken to the city's Caglayan Courthouse to answer charges of violating the law on meetings and demonstrations.
The journalists were among more than 200 people prosecutors have recommended for imprisonment pending trial, including left-wing activists rounded up at their homes in raids early Monday. By late Tuesday, 172 people, including seven journalists, had been jailed ahead of trial.
Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya said early Tuesday that police had detained 43 "provocateurs" over what he said were "vile insults" hurled at Erdogan and his family at protests. Later he posted that 1,418 people had been detained since Wednesday last week, and 979 suspects were currently in custody.
"No concessions will be made to those who attempt to terrorize the streets," he wrote on X.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
9 hours ago
- Spectator
My plan for Prevent
In the autumn of 1940, British cities were being bombed every night by large aeroplanes whose provenance was apparently of some considerable doubt. While the public almost unanimously believed the conflagrations to have been caused by the Luftwaffe, the authorities – right up to the government – refused to speculate. Indeed, when certain members of the public raised their voices and said 'This is all down to Hitler and Goering and the bloody Germans!', they received visits from the police who either prosecuted them for disturbing the peace or put their names on a list of possible extremists. The nights grew darker. The number of towns and cities subjected to these nightly bombardments widened. Very soon everybody in the country knew somebody whose home had been destroyed or who had themselves been killed. The government was forced to take action, and so in November 1940 it came up with what it called its 'Prevent' strategy, which aimed to protect British cities from further destruction. In the introduction to this new policy, civil servants listed possible vectors for these bombing raids and top of the list, by some margin, were the Slovaks. A senior intelligence officer told the public: 'The greatest threat to our nation today is from the Slovaks. We must train our people in how to spot Slovaks and report them to the police whenever they can.' The Germans were also mentioned, further down the list of possible perps, but the wording here was heavily caveated. Yes, some Germans may have been involved, but over all the German population was utterly devoted to peace and regretted the nightly infernos every bit as much as did the people who suffered under them. Our own air force was directed to drop its bombs on Bratislava, Kosice, Poprad and (the consequence of an understandable confusion over the names of the two countries) Maribor. And yet for some mystifying reason, the raids on Britain did not lessen. This seems to me exactly the response of our government(s) and most importantly of Prevent to the threat from Islamic terrorism. Let me be clear: I am not remotely comparing Muslims with Germans or Islam with National Socialism – I am simply saying that, in effect, this is what our government would have done in 1940 if it had been gripped by the same cringing witlessness and outright lying that possesses seemingly all of our authorities today when it comes to terrorist attacks upon the British people. You may be aware of the manifestly stupid quote from the Prevent halfwits that people who believe that 'western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups' are cultural nationalists at risk of becoming the kind of extremists who end up murdering people. People who believe the above probably consist of 70 per cent of the British population and, if his latest speeches are anything to go by, include the Prime Minister. And yet this stuff pervades everything Prevent puts out, while at the same time exonerating Islam and in some cases even those Muslims who do become terrorists (because they have suffered, you see). If people who support Brexit or worry about immigration are extremists, you're going to get pretty high figures So, for example, Bolton council's useful 'Prevent' handbook singles out 'right-wing extremists' as being at the forefront of terror attacks in the UK, and these extremists include people who are cultural nationalists: 'Cultural nationalism is ideology characterised by anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, anti-establishment narratives, often emphasising British/English 'victimhood' and identity under attack from a perceived 'other'.' Islamic terrorism is also mentioned – but, again, heavily caveated. Then there's Prevent's own list of people who were picked up under its guidelines: 45 per cent were related to extreme right-wing radicalisation (230); 23 per cent were linked to Islamist radicalisation (118); the rest were related to other radicalisation concerns, including incels and those at risk of carrying out school shootings. But then I suppose if people who proclaim their support for Brexit or worry a bit about immigration are extremists, you are going to get pretty high arrest figures. If you add into the mix the fact that simply to associate Islam with terrorism you are guilty of Islamophobia, then you can see why we're in the state we're in. Incidentally, when she was Prime Minister, Theresa May, to her credit, drafted a new introduction to the Prevent guidelines which made it clear that the biggest threat to British security was al Qaeda, not Tommy Robinson et al. But that message does not seem to have sunk in with those in Prevent. It seems almost pointless to run through the facts. The truth is that almost every fatal terrorist attack in Britain since 2001 has been perpetrated by Islamists. All bar three. Have these people got a twisted or perverted understanding of Islam, as Prevent insists? I haven't a clue. I am no Quranic expert. I'm just, y'know, taking their word for it. Further, 80 per cent of the Counter Terrorism Policing network's investigations are related to Islamism (2023). Some 75 per cent of MI5's surveillance cases are Islamists. There are around 40,000 potential jihadis being monitored by our security services. There is not the remotest doubt as to the provenance of the gravest terror threats to our country. It's not the shaven-headed nutters with swastika armbands. It is Islamists. Nigel Farage's answer is to sack everyone working in Prevent. That seems a perfectly reasonable suggestion. But I may have a better one. Scrap Prevent entirely and initiate a new network of monitoring and reporting which focuses solely on Islamic terrorism. Junk the sixth-form philosophising over what is meant by the term 'extremist' and locate the problem precisely where it is: somewhere within our Muslim communities, even if we accept that our Muslim communities may not want them there. In short, get real and tell the truth. This kind of approach worked pretty well 85 years ago.
Scottish Sun
16 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Donald Trump reveals huge new plans for Aberdeenshire golf course
The golf courses will combine to create 'The Greatest 36 Holes in Golf' on the Aberdeenshire coast TOP TRUMP Donald Trump reveals huge new plans for Aberdeenshire golf course DONALD Trump has unveiled huge new plans for his Aberdeenshire golf course. The site is currently undergoing an expansion, with a new 18-hole course set to open later this summer. 2 Donald Trump has revealed new plans for his Aberdeenshire golf course Credit: AFP 2 Trump and his Scots mum Mary Anne MacLeod Credit: Getty Known officially as the Old and the New, the golf courses will combine to create 'The Greatest 36 Holes in Golf' on the Aberdeenshire coast. And as part of the upgrades, the 47th US President is creating a memorial garden to his late mum Mary Anne MacLeod at the golf resort. The main feature of the garden will be a tribute carved in stone, specially imported from her birthplace and original home, the Isle of Lewis. Trump's mum was born and brought up in the fishing town of Tong on the Hebridean island of Lewis but emigrated to New York to live a very different life. She was one of tens of thousands of Scots who travelled to the US and Canada in the early years of the last century, looking to escape economic hardship at home. She first left Lewis for New York in 1930, at the age of 18, to seek work as a domestic servant. Six years later, she was married to successful property developer Frederick Trump, the son of German migrants and one of the most eligible men in New York. The fourth of their five children, Donald John, as he is referred to on the islands, is now US president for the second time. Mary Anne died in 2000 aged 88 and is buried in New York. Sarah Malone, executive vice president of Trump International, said: 'With the New course opening now fast approaching, we are delighted to share the final layout of this extraordinary links and the completion of The Greatest 36 Holes. Watch the supercringey moment Donald Trump gets a rocking bagpipe welcome to his first Scots golf course 'It has been a phenomenal journey to create two truly exceptional world-class championship golf courses, across this magnificent stretch of North Sea coastline. 'The Trump family has a deep affection for Scotland – not only as the home of golf – but as the ancestral home of President Trump's beloved mother, Mary Anne MacLeod.' We told previously how a man who claims a farmer's hedge has ruined his views of Donald Trump's Aberdeenshire golf course has taken his fight to the government.
Reuters
20 hours ago
- Reuters
European defence supercycle means scrapping deficit fears
LONDON, June 10 (Reuters) - European defence stocks have been on a tear since the devastating conflict in Ukraine started in 2022, a trend that has only accelerated since announcements of European rearmament plans. But the beneficial economic impact of the European defence supercycle may be heavily dependent on how it's financed. The Stoxx Europe TMI Aerospace & Defense index has posted annualised returns above 40% since February 2022. Earlier this year, some investors thought the defence rally might slow as a ceasefire in Ukraine started to seem more likely. But ceasefire hopes have been dashed for now, and the NATO summit on June 24-25 may see European countries boost their commitments to defence spending even more. NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte recently said he expects the bloc to agree at the summit to increase defence spending to an eye-catching 5% of GDP, with 3.5% of that directed to 'hard' defence like weapons, personnel, and infrastructure. The rest would be dedicated to measures like home defence and civilian preparation. But even this 3.5% target is ambitious. Currently, only Poland meets this target, while the U.S. and Estonia come close at 3.4% of GDP. The amount of spending being proposed here is enormous. For example, if the UK, France, Spain, and Italy were to raise defence budgets to 3.5% of GDP by the mid-2030s, they would each have to increase their annual defence spending by about $40 billion. In total, NATO members would have to boost their annual defence budgets by around $375 billion. For context, the global aerospace and defence market currently has annual revenues of roughly $1.3 trillion, and Europe's defence industry accounts for about a quarter at $330 billion, opens new tab. Increased defence spending could help Europe overcome its persistent growth challenge. Going back to 1960, every euro spent on defence has increased European GDP growth by around one euro as well. This fiscal multiplier is at the upper end of the 0.6 to 1.0 range that academic studies about the U.S. typically find, opens new tab. Moreover, as European defence spending increases, the fiscal multiplier rises as well because the region's defence industry capacity remains severely constrained, so contractors are forced to quickly hire new employees at higher salaries or build new facilities, amplifying the impact of the fiscal stimulus. For example, German defence contractors like Rheinmetall and Hensoldt had to borrow workers and entire factories from other businesses like Continental and Bosch to keep up with the increased demand from the Ukraine war. Importantly, if NATO agrees to further expand defence spending into the 2030s, even if the Ukraine conflict ends, they can provide European defence companies with the confidence they need to build new factories, hire employees, and train much-needed specialists to overcome these capacity constraints. The main challenge will almost certainly not be the region's willingness to re-arm, but rather how to pay for it. In the case of the United Kingdom, the British government last week published its strategic defence review, which sets out a plan to get the country war ready and increase defence spending to 3% of GDP in the next parliament between 2029 and 2034. Unfortunately, barring any major surprises at the 2025 spending review to be published on June 11, the UK government will continue to stick to its fiscal rules and limit investment spending to an annual real growth rate of 1.3% until 2030. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, opens new tab has calculated that by adhering to these rules, increasing defence spending will have to come at the expense of non-defence investments. This means that any boost to growth from increasing defence spending in the UK could be offset by the negative impacts of deteriorating civilian infrastructure and public services, such as healthcare and education. Another option, which may be more economically beneficial long-term, is financing increased defence spending with additional debt issuance, as the EU plans to do with its Readiness 2030, opens new tab initiative. This will mean reforming self-imposed fiscal rules. But if running larger deficits now can boost growth, this should keep debt-to-GDP ratios under control, create jobs, and help to secure Europe's future. True, increased deficits risk drawing the ire of bond vigilantes. But the market reaction to the announcement of Readiness 2030 and Germany's huge infrastructure package suggests that bond investors are fine with additional deficits as long as the money is expected to be spent on productive investments. While government bond yields rose briefly after these spending plans were announced, they have already reversed these moves. The biggest risk is that the spending does not prove as productive as expected, which could eventually lead Europe into another debt crisis, but given the enormous economic and security challenges that the continent faces, this may be a risk worth taking. (The views expressed here are those of Joachim Klement, an investment strategist at Panmure Liberum, the UK's largest independent investment bank). Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab, opens new tab and X, opens new tab, opens new tab.
