What are we journalists fighting for?
As Rasıh Reşat said, those who “have infiltrated the profession,” who, under the guise of “journalism,” insult and belittle people, declare them guilty before a court has even rendered a verdict (or even before a case has been filed against them), parade them before the public, gossip about their private lives, derive their motivation from slandering others, and sustain themselves through such means should not be labeled as “journalists,” and consequently, “journalists” should not be held accountable, or targeted for such unethical conduct…
In these processes, it wasn’t just politicians and prominent figures—many journalists were also subjected to the same insults, slanders, disgusting accusations, and lynch mobs. This is still continuing.
On social media, such posts, news articles, and headlines have been popping up like mushrooms on a daily basis.
The Journalists’ Union holds seminars almost every day, runs social media campaigns, and tirelessly explains “who is a journalist, what is news.”
This was precisely where the opposition and the Bar Association should have stood, and offered their support regarding journalists and journalism.
It was about standing by those fighting tooth and nail to protect the honor of journalism.
However, this was the hard part.
Under the pretext of “Let’s not become a target; let’s not lose our appetite,” not only was this nuance ignored, but many parties even supported this ugliness, this disinformation carried out under the guise of “journalism.”
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” was the mantra. This includes some opposition parties outside of Parliament!
The profession was eroded; it was clear what journalism was, but what it was not remained unclear—or rather, it was not meant to be understood!
Journalists were portrayed as the culprits behind this ugly order on social media; they were held responsible, and the solution was found in silencing them!
With the amendment to the Penal Code, the distinction between a “ordinary citizen” and a “well-known, public figure” was eliminated, and a massive black umbrella was held over the government through the Bar Association.
“Let them not be seen, let their names not be heard, let their faces not be remembered,” it was said.
Publishing the photos and names of ordinary citizens in court corridors during judicial proceedings is, no matter how you look at it, a matter of conscience and ethics.
As it stands, many newspapers—including ours—already refrain from doing this out of commitment to the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.
However, we do so by making that distinction of a “public figure”—a concept found in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights but nonexistent in any other country in the world.
Who is a public figure?
Elected politicians, the bureaucrats they appoint, and those with the power to use public resources and make decisions that affect the lives of the public.
Judicial proceedings that involve these individuals concern the entire society, and their transparent dissemination to the public serves the public interest.
Under the guise of the “presumption of innocence,” the aim is to shield these individuals from scrutiny and remove them from public oversight.
I doubt the government could have come up with such a brilliant formula even if it had thought about it for fourty years. Thankfully, the Bar Association came to the rescue and created this law.
On top of that, it proposed a one-year prison sentence for a journalist.
Because the reports of a handful of investigative journalists had thrown the government into disarray.
Those who should have resigned ten times over in democratic countries were disturbed by the exposure of this disgraceful system.
The mainstream media had begun to dominate the headlines, but the desired outcome still hadn’t been achieved. Neither the Turkish Cypriot media nor the Turkish Cypriot community were easy targets.
It became clear this wasn’t Turkey—the task was difficult.
There was only one way: silence them!
The process began with amendments to the Criminal Code and the Cybercrime Law.
It continued with lynch mobs, insults, threats, and intimidation.
To cut off the lifeline of the independent media, which was already economically cornered, every available tool was put to use.
Then came cyberattacks, the removal of news content, and the forced closure of websites.
They wiped out years of hard work and the workers’ livelihoods. They left media organizations facing closure.
The struggle continues, but somehow this too has been overcome!
After all, they were up against journalists—writers who would etch the truth into stone and bring the news to the public!
They were the kind of people who would go door to door if necessary!
Now the Bar Association stands in our way. It has effectively blocked any accountability from the government regarding the legislative changes, defending the provision with tooth and nail—and continues to do so.
Thanks to this, the government can carry out its election campaign with ease. The Bar Association is eagerly absorbing all the backlash onto itself.
It accuses journalists of “wanting to photograph suspects and defendants whose guilt has not been proven, thereby interfering with their right to a fair trial,” and the Bar Association President is blatantly spreading disinformation!
Would the President of the Bar Association ever lie?
Even though fighting against this squeezes one’s heart, we are not giving up.
We will not give up.
Those who act as a shield for this government are taking steps toward the dustbin of history by sharing the same fate as the government.
One would have to be blind not to see this.
Then there is also the issue of putting pressure on the courts.
Attempts to keep the court proceedings of politicians and public officials out of the public eye will create an environment where pressure can be more easily exerted on the courts while the public remains silent.
The day will come for those who are salivating at the prospect of intervening in the judiciary.
We can see whose interests are being served by those who claim that journalists’ reporting influences judicial processes.
Media oversight of judicial proceedings is also a crucial pillar in safeguarding an independent judiciary.
Where the pen and the camera’s light shine, there is clarity.
It exposes the interventions sought to be carried out in the dark.
In other words, this is not merely a matter of the public’s right to information, but a matter of judicial independence.
Don’t get your hopes up.
We are not going to allow this.
This article was originally punlished on 07.05.2026
