At the same time as the sound of clanging pots and pans rang out through the streets of opposition strongholds in Istanbul on a recent evening, marking another mass anti-government demonstration, a different reality was being broadcast to viewers of Turkish pro-government channels.
Public television showed the president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, speaking to a gilded conference room after an iftar dinner. He boasted of his government’s achievements, of hiring new teachers and attracting youth to an aerospace and technology conference.
The pro-government cable channel NTV carried news of the efforts of the finance minister, Mehmet Şimşek, to stabilise the economy. Neither channel broadcast footage from the protests, which were sparked by the arrest of the Istanbul mayor, Ekrem İmamoğlu. Neither did they interview protesters. Though NTV was running a headline that said hundreds of people had been arrested, mirroring statements made by the interior minister.
Substantive coverage of the protests has instead been the preserve of the small slice of newspapers and cable channels that exist outside the well funded and slick pro-government broadcasting networks. The opposition-aligned newspaper Cumhuriyet, for instance, has carried news of the conditions inside a maximum-security facility where İmamoğlu has been held, and speeches by another opposition leader to rapturous crowds of thousands.
“This is the negative outcome of what Erdoğan has built for two decades, which is a highly polarised, toxic media environment,” said Erol Önderoğlu of Reporters Without Borders, pointing to the spread of cable channels and media companies with longstanding financial ties to the government.
“Erdoğan now controls about 85% of national and corporate media in Turkey, so we’re not talking about a fair media environment where pluralism truly flourishes,” he said.
This imbalance is laid bare in the coverage of the protests. Murat Somer, a political science professor who studies polarisation at Istanbul’s Özyeğin University, said when pro-government channels do cover the opposition or demonstrators, they portray them as a threat.
“If you listen to the pro-government media, you are hearing that the protesters are a bunch of vandals who are insulting Erdoğan,” he said. Demonstrators are described as “aggressive and hostile, but also weak and unable to accept that Imamoğlu has committed crimes”.
Turkey’s government media watchdog (RTÜK) has banned the broadcasting of live footage of the protests, although this sparked a row within the body, whose membership is designed to reflect the makeup of the Turkish parliament.
İlhan Taşcı, an RTÜK official from the opposition, posted on X that bureaucrats called the managers of major television networks “and issued threats that they stop live broadcasts or their licenses would be revoked”. The RTÜK president, Ebubekir Şahin, responded, telling Taşcı “there is no need for disinformation. The state and its institutions will do what is necessary.”
Live footage of the protests would dispel much of what the pro-government channels have said about them, said Somer. “If there was live coverage, it would show a well-attended peaceful event – yesterday there were thousands of people singing and it almost looked like a concert,” he said. “But they can’t show this. It’s disinformation, it’s as simple as that.”
This skewed coverage prompted opposition leader Özgür Özel and other members of his Republican People’s party (CHP) to call for a boycott, targeting businesses that they claim have deep financial ties to the government or fund its media apparatus. The boycott list includes a popular coffee chain, Turkey’s widely loved chocolate producer Ülker and media organisations including the state broadcaster. Özel has also called on the government to allow İmamoğlu’s trial to be broadcast live.
Ten photojournalists were detained in dawn raids this week, with several charged by prosecutors the following day and facing jail time.
“As we know, images are powerful, and with these latest protests we’ve seen so many remarkable ones in the international media, showing that Turkey’s democracy is resisting with so many people in the streets again,” said media expert Emre Kızılkaya, of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
“Some of the photos we’ve seen are documenting police brutality with remarkable visuals, and this may have alarmed the Turkish authorities.”
Most Turkish people get their news from television, but overwhelming government control means the few channels critical of the government or loyal to the opposition are constantly weathering heavy fines from the regulators. This pressure has only increased since the protests began, including the live broadcast ban, further fines, and arrests targeting employees of opposition channels.
Kızılkaya pointed to the crackdown on live broadcast and detentions of journalists who reported from the protests as preventing news that helps to “capture the essence of these protests”.
Opposition-aligned channels, he added, were unable to reflect the mood by interviewing demonstrators on the street or showing clashes with the police.
“Media organisations that are critical of the government see themselves as playing their last game,” he said. “They see these protests as vital for the future of the right to properly inform the country … the future of journalism is on the line now.”
