It is "vendetta politics," in the most simplistic terms. If the Reuters "News Agency" does not have a blood feud with the government of Türkiye, then why is it publishing a 3,400-word "special report" against it? Yes, against it! In the course books published in London on the essentials of reporting, we never came across the tactic of reporting against something or somebody, but, thanks to this London-based so-called news organization, we still see that Her Majesty’s news agency has not forgotten its grudge against Türkiye. In the past, its bureau chief had targeted former Prime Minister Adnan Menderes (may he rest in peace) in the late 1950s, claiming that Menderes was about to disown NATO and ally Türkiye with the Soviet Union. Menderes had to get rid of him by shutting down the Reuters office in Istanbul. Later, the military junta that tried, convicted and hanged Menderes exploited the Reuters’ reports in that sham trial.

Now, the same news organization is targeting the Erdoğan administration in Türkiye with a totally fabricated "special report" written by its bureau chief Jonathan Spicer and edited by its international enterprise editor Janet McBride.

In this long derogatory article, there is one (only one) event reported: former Finance Minister Berat Albayrak’s Instagram message about quitting his job and the government not responding to it immediately. In many countries, presidents and prime ministers do not respond to social media messages in haste – especially when a minister announces his resignation in a post. Such political resignations are not unilateral acts but subject to approval or rejection, being sometimes a political gesture! Government spokespeople usually wait for the announcement until they hear from their boss!

Monopolizing media

Reuters’ special report portrays a dictatorial philosophy of governance in this instance and depicts Türkiye as a country slipping into a one-man regime.

So why did some media outlets remain silent for 24 hours after Albayrak’s resignation? Some editors might have hung onto their hats, especially because the mentioned minister happened to be the president’s son-in-law at the same time. Untimely reporting of it as if it were a final (and accepted) removal from the government could have been misleading. I worked as an editor for several media outlets for many decades, and I would not have immediately reported it as a final decision. I would have waited until I heard the president’s or prime minister’s announcement. Whereas, all daily newspapers and television channels reported it as Albayrak’s social media message; it was all over the country, from left to right.

However, it did not create a situation like Spicer and McBride tried to make readers believe. It was not a routine example of Erdoğan’s "taming the media in the country." Their article does not name one editor attesting to the claim that Erdoğan muzzled the media. The title of the internet version of the article claims that "media insiders say that Turkish officials shape the nation's news, from an office tower in Ankara." Yet there is not one single insider named in that article; instead, it is full of innuendoes, hearsays and half-truths. Authors Paul H. Weaver, Mort Rosenblum and Cynthia Crossen, among many others, wrote seminal articles on how the "culture of lying" found its way into the newsroom through the moniker of "the informed sources." If you are not familiar with all the tricks of the trade "to taint the truth" you can read about them in the former head of corporate communication at JP Morgan & Co. Peter Vanderwicken’s article titled "Why the News Is Not the Truth" in the Harvard Business Review.

So-called interviews

Spicer and McBride have their own epithets as sources. They claim they have conducted "interviews with dozens of sources in the media, government officials and regulators" without mentioning names. They claim they have contacted "more than a dozen industry insiders" but not one of them counterclaims the argument that "Erdoğan has bent formerly independent institutions to his will." Apparently, "veteran editors" at state-owned broadcaster TRT have shown screenshots showing the government orders sent to the editors, but Reuters selected not to share them with its readers. Its story is full of quips by "a veteran" and "another veteran" editors whose names are kept secret by Reuters. "Another veteran TV journalist," told Reuters that, "the government is like your child or lover; you can guess very well what disturbs or annoys them." Luckily, we are spared the name of this journalist who could see a semblance between his lover and his government.

Reuters’ special report is essentially targeting one government office and its director. Spicer and McBride say the "directions to newsrooms often come from officials in the government's Directorate of Communications." They portray this office as "an Erdoğan creation" even though it was created by the founder of the republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, even before he had created the republic itself!

During the most recent constitutional reforms, Atatürk’s Directorate of Media, Press and Information was renamed the Directorate of Communications and put under the management of Altun. Reuters tries to describe him as "the man who runs the media machine was little known in the news industry," but Altun is a well-known academic with important credentials as the dean of the School of Communications at Ibn Haldun University among them. Author of numerous scientific books and articles, Altun served as Istanbul branch coordinator and later, deputy general coordinator of the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA). The directorate had lost almost all its functions and budged and reduced to a position of issuing press ID cards for journalists. Altun reorganized it in such a manner that now it functions as an informative and useful tool for media, it also provides a verification port for disinformation targeting Türkiye.

Fake news

All countries are targeted by disinformation campaigns, but the Alt-Media Community (AMC) tends to target Türkiye a lot more frequently than any other. The AMC is a general term that refers to individuals and outlets that aren't part of the mainstream media (MSM). Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford reported last year that 50 out of 100 news reports about Türkiye are false or fabricated, while this ratio is nine for Germany, 12 for France and 15 for the United Kingdom. Altun and his colleagues verify and when needed, discredit those fake narratives. Moreover, Altun says the more the directorate becomes successful in this effort, the more it is being targeted by the sources of fake and fabricated news. Reuters, Voice of America and BBC, as well as Deutsche Welle get their fair share of those discredits.

Then, the question is why on earth are they trans-Atlantic sources of fake news about Türkiye? Especially, when you consider that those countries are seemingly allies or friends of Türkiye, this question becomes vital for the people in Türkiye. What is the root cause of those schizophrenia-like symptoms? Clearly, the authors of the fake news about Türkiye do hear voices, they have hallucinations and distorted or false perceptions and bizarre beliefs, especially about the Erdoğan administration. Otherwise, how can you explain the fact that the Reuters special report portrays open and transparent commercial transactions between the media companies as Erdoğan’s way to shape news coverage? How could a sane journalist claim that the regulator for broadcast media, the Radio and Television Supreme Council (shaped after the U.S.’ FCC) in which there are members representing the opposition political parties acts as a censor or takes instructions from Erdoğan? When there are hundreds of respectable professionals in the media, why does Reuters elect to interview a person whose bitterness after being fired from the Hürriyet Group after 30 years is clear as a bell? "The mainstream media in Türkiye serves the function of concealing the truth more than reporting the news," this person says. Well, there are many others who think otherwise. Why did Reuters not take heed to its own sermon and "balance" that view?

New Türkiye

The psychosis behind this hostile behavior had been there since Türkiye refused to serve as a simple military basis for many of the U.S. and EU actions in the Middle East but acted as a playmaker instead. If Türkiye doesn’t like the idea of dismembering Libya, Iraq or Syria, then those countries should have their territorial integrity intact. If Türkiye doesn’t like the way Somalia is treated, then some Western countries should stop fomenting anti-governmental interventions in that country. If Türkiye is trying to protect its people from over-the-border intrusions of the PKK terrorist organization, then the U.S. and its allies should stop arming and supplying its extensions in Syria.

Obviously, these new rules of the game in the area are not catching the fancy of some people whom those broadcasters and so-called news organizations are operating with. Reuters, in particular, has been playing the role of hitman against "the New Türkiye."

Altun characterized that role as "operational reporting" and the more forcefully Türkiye defends the truth from a system the U.S. and EU try to create by occupation, military coups and civil wars, and through the hands of terrorist organizations, the more disinformation will come from the ilk of Reuters.

Altun calls it a badge of honor for his office. In fact, it is a badge of honor for Türkiye.