While on location, it is relatively easy to understand the enormous progress modern Turkey has made since early in the new millennium – it looks as if a brand-new nation-state was formed in which its citizens together with the government redefined the meaning of the term "participatory democracy."
When you meet with the people, ask questions and listen to their responses, you soon realize that this form of democracy, this unique model of living together instead of living side by side is truly cherished by each and every one who calls this proud country home.
In this context, there is one group of professionals in particular who benefit from visiting or living in Turkey: members of the media, regardless of being active on television, print, online or radio.
Granted, journalists must be curious by default, but there is much more to it. The job necessitates a determination to look at an issue from many different angles and perspectives and never take no for an answer.
Last week was a perfect time to be in the country and yet a rather challenging point, too. It was like living on a different planet: What was unfolding on location was the exact opposite of what many overseas media houses were telling their audiences back home. At stake: the supposed downfall of the Turkish economy. Rest assured – it turned out differently. Please let me explain.
As if a fully functioning market economy is not dependent on the global financial situation and as if this were not true for all such fully functioning market economies, a remarkably large cohort of overseas commentators has for quite some time announced that the Turkish lira is in freefall while discreetly overlooking all other economic upheavals occurring in almost all post-pandemic societies. As always – only Turkey is in trouble.
It took usually one or two paragraphs (unless the headline gave it straight away) before readers, viewers and listeners knew the reason: Of course, it was President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan who singlehandedly wrecked the economy and thus his nation.
As with everything else, the audience was prompted to associate currency fluctuations and the related impact on peoples' purchasing power with Erdoğan. But naturally, this association is only allowed as long as something negative is to be reported – meaning only one out of every 100 issues the president deals with. The remaining 99 positive topics that should be associated with Erdoğan never see the light of (publishing) day.
Yes, the Turkish lira certainly encountered problems, and no one would deny that it lost considerably against the United States dollar and many other currencies. It resulted in Turkish citizens finding it increasingly difficult to travel, for example, into the eurozone and businesses having to handle outstanding financing demands in foreign currencies to settle their bills. On top of it all, private consumption became indeed more expensive.
But the Turkish economy bounced back, and what many abroad belittled as a politician interfering in the economy was exactly what stemmed the tide. A new economic model was put in place stimulating the economy by allowing for affordable interest rates and at the same time considerably increasing the minimum wage. Other measures accompanied these laudable efforts, including enabling lira investments to yield similar returns as dollar deposits. Soon, the result became crystal clear: It is possible to influence exchange rates and currency values with domestic monetary policies. What is more, those domestic monetary policies showed the entire world that although all democracies are irreversibly intertwined on a global scale, it is still possible to disconnect from foreign exchange rate manipulations and thus stay clear of troubled waters.
It will for sure take time for full normalization and to achieve a balance with various currencies, but it will work.
Please accept my apologies for not going into too much monetary detail in this opinion page contribution as the state of the Turkish economy was basically used to make a point – welcome to the bizarre universe of fake Turkey news disseminated overseas.
When the lira regained ground, media in Turkey reported the facts as they had before. No one ignored the problems a few weeks earlier, and now no one ignored the sensational bouncing back. A close look at various publications and television stations underlined this trend; analysts discussed where the currency situation is headed and whether consumer prices are going to fall. Naturally, these developments did not occur all at once, hence prudence was the order of the day. In principle, however, the tone was optimistic, paying compliments to what some analysts would label unorthodox monetary policies yet with a journalistic smile as they worked out perfectly well.
Up until the moment, the headlines continued to declare the lira's freefall, that the reduction in interest rate did not work out, and so on and so forth. This is certainly accurate for many segments of German media. Searching for a change in the media's attitude remained fruitless. Even after the government managed to stem the currency and thus the price index tide, articles published continued to belittle the positive developments, stating for example that the crisis continues and that it will be rather costly for the Turkish government. A further search this very morning produced, once again, all those previous negative commentaries (with or without a direct link to Erdoğan), and at most, one or two were slightly more moderate, along the lines of "wait and see."
What kind of headline would an objective commentator have expected? What type of article would a curious European reader have welcomed? What sort of coverage would make the audience better understand how Turkey deals with such a monetary situation?
Perhaps, "Turkish economy bounces back," or "Governments new monetary policies yield first results," or "Foreign currency exchange rates can be influenced by domestic policies – the Turkish success story." Granted – the first headline example is rather neutral but still factual; accepted, the second dreamed up example is factual yet optimistic; and for sure, the latter dreamed up example for a headline is somewhat over the top but ultimately still factual as it is indeed a huge success for government policies when a certain currency gains almost 40 points in such a short time or is it not?
Were it only for some isolated incidents one could shrug it all off, but somewhere, someplace out there in European media land (and unfortunately ever more so in German language media land) must be an unwritten law that before you can become a leading contributor or editor indeed you must abide by the rule of "whatever modern Turkey plans or does is false" and "whatever Erdoğan plans or does is false."
Mention Turkish currency encounters problems, of course, but then please mention when those problems have been properly addressed, too. One-sided reporting distorts the picture, distorts reality.
And it has a spill-over effect on our entire profession and especially young and aspiring colleagues who set out to become a writers or reporters. If the publication you work for, and almost all stories about today’s Turkey are negative, would you really dare submit a positive analysis to your very own editor?
And to make matters worse, if the audience only sees negative news about Turkey, there is the danger that one day the public will think that it is real. Hence, negative or fake news about Turkey shapes a negative public opinion about modern Turkey. This in turn creates far-right (or even far-left) populism Islamophobia, xenophobia and hatred against an entire state and its people. Inciting hatred in society should be a no-no and, as a matter of fact, is illegal, too.
Let us hope that like overseas foreign currency manipulations, overseas fake Turkey news will one day become a thing of the (journalistic) past.
