Transparency of media ownership in Turkey

Last updated

Transparency of media ownership is the public availability of accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date information about media ownership structures. A legal regime guaranteeing transparency of media ownership makes possible for the public as well as for media authorities to find out who effectively owns, controls and influences the media as well as media influence on political parties or state bodies. The disclosure of media ownership can be prescribed by generic regulation (commercial law) or by media-specific provision. Such measures may mandate the disclosure of information on media ownership structures to specific authorities or to the general public.

Contents

Turkey has both generic company laws and media-specific regulations on transparency of the print, broadcasting and online media outlets. Despite the existence of such laws, according to some experts the existing regulatory framework does not guarantee the disclosure of crucial information and to know who actually owns and influences the media in Turkey. [1]

Overview

With regard to the disclosure of media ownership information, Turkey has both generic company laws and specific regulations concerning the printed, broadcast and online sectors. [2] These regulations provide both for the disclosure to public bodies such as the Chief Prosecutor's Office and the “Radio and Television Supreme Council” (RTUK), and for the disclosure to citizens through the publication of ownership information on the media companies’ websites. [1]

However, a research by Access Info Europe shows that the existing laws misses to prescribe the disclosure of crucial information therefore failing to actually disclose who owns and influences the media in Turkey. In fact, neither print media (under the Press Law) nor broadcast (under the Law on the Establishment of Radio and Television Institutions and Their Broadcasts) or online media (under the Law on the Establishment of Radio and Television Institutions and Their Broadcasts and the Law on the Regulation of Online Broadcasts and the Struggle of Crimes Committed Online) are required to report the essential information needed to identify ownership. [1] Also, as Access Info notes, the law applying to broadcasting and on demand services does not require to disclose if shares are held on behalf of another nor the existence of beneficial owners.

Uncertainty in the realm of transparency of media ownership in Turkey increased after 2001, when the ban on media conglomerates' bidding in public tenders was removed. [3] In the last 15 years, the biggest Turkish media owners are corporations also operating in sectors such as construction, energy, mining and tourism. [4] [5] In this regard, strong ties with the government are lamented by Turkish civil society and the international community. [6] [7]

The situation of uncertain transparency of media ownership increased throughout 2015 and 2016, when government's trustees were appointed to allegedly Gulenist-affiliated media outlets and companies. A takeover took place in October 26, 2016 for the Koza-Ipek Media Group, which owned, among others, Bugun and Millet dailies and Cihan News Agency. Similarly, trustees were appointed on March 5, 2016, for Feza Holding, the media holding publishing, among others, the most read newspaper in Turkey, Zaman, and the English-language daily Today's Zaman. [8] [9] [10] [11] The assets of these companies are currently under the jurisdiction of the government's Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF), and it is not clear if the companies will be either dissolved or sold off. [12] [13] [14]

Under emergency decree No. 687 of February 9, 2017, Turkey's Saving Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF) will be authorized to sell companies seized by the state through the appointment of trustees. [15] [16]

Disclosure of ownership information of broadcast media (radio and television) is required by Law No. 6112 on the Establishment of Radio and Television Institutions and Their Broadcasts (2011) [17] and by the Regulation on the Administrative and Financial Terms to Be Obeyed By Media Service Provider Institutions and the Platform and Infrastructure Service Operators (2011). With regard to print media, disclosure is required by the Press Law No. 5187 (2004). Finally, with regard to online media, disclosure is required by Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Online Broadcasts and the Struggle of Crimes Committed Online [18] [19] and the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles of Internet Broadcasts (2007).

Law No. 6112 on broadcasters requires “media service providers” to report ownership information. They are defined as legal entities which choose the content of the radio, television and on-demand broadcasting services. Instead, according to the Press Law, ownership information have to be disclosed for media organizations publishing “printed materials”. Finally, the legislation on online media includes within its scope content providers, hosting service providers and access providers (under Article No. 3 of Law No. 5651). They should publish their up to date information in the homepage of their website.

According to the relevant regulations for radios and televisions, ownership information have to be notified when a licence application is made, in cases of transfer of shares, acquisition and merger, changes to the disclosed information and annually, following the annual general meeting of shareholders. Instead, under the Press Law, information have to be disclosed before publishing a newspaper or other periodicals.

Except for online media, if the information has the nature of commercial secret, it can be withheld. [1] For instance, this was the case when the Media Ownership Monitor [20] – a project conducted by a team of members of Bianet , an independent Turkish press agency, and Reporters Without Borders – requested information regarding the Turkish public broadcaster's (TRT) finances. [21]

Sanctions for non-disclosure are foreseen in the Press Law and in the Internet Law, covering only printed and online publications. [1]

Also foreign media organizations are covered by the above listed requirements. [1]

Information to be disclosed

According to the laws, the information that have to be disclosed by the information providers are:

Experts consider that existing obligations are not sufficient to establish who the legal or natural persons who effectively own and ultimately control the media organisations are. [1]

Disclosure to public authorities

According to the Press Law, disclosure of ownership information has to be made to the Office of the local Chief Prosecutor. [2]

According to Law No. 6112 on media service providers (broadcaster), their ownership information have to be reported to the “Radio and Television Supreme Council” (RTÜK) .

However, experts consider that regulators have no transparent, credible, and accessible annual records on media ownership. [22] [23]

Disclosure to the citizens

The information notified to the RTÜK have also to be published by the media organizations concerned on their websites. Under the Press Law, the records of the Public Prosecutor's office shall be public and anyone can see the relevant files containing published information and documents by making an application.

Information on media ownership can be obtained by the public by making a Freedom of Information request, under Law No. 4982, on the Right to Obtain Information which entitles individuals to request information and documents from public and publicly owned bodies. [24] Usually, requests for information related to media ownership are raised by professionals and media institutions, while it is not common among ordinary citizens. [2]

Media service providers (radio and TV broadcasters) can only be set up as joint stock companies. Only joint-stock companies have to disclose information to the trade registry, under the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102. [25] Media companies entering in the category of public joint-stock companies also have to respect the Capital Market Law No. 2499 (1981) and the Communiqué on Financial Reporting of the Capital Markets Board. [26] [27] These public enterprises should regularly draw financial statements to the Capital Markets Board, [28] and annual reports should be disclosed to the public.

An example of public joint-stock company in the field of media is the state-run Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT- Türkiye Radyo ve Televizyon Kurumu).

The results of a survey clearly showed that the sole enforcement of commercial law provides insufficient information regarding who effectively owns and ultimately controls media organizations. [1]

Beneficial ownership

None of the laws regulating print, broadcast and online media requires disclosure of beneficial owners, i.e. holders owning shares on behalf of another person, or those with indirect control or a significant interest to a media authority or to the public.

If the media company is established as a joint stock company, shareholding information can easily be accessed through the company's website and through the database of the trade registry. However, if shares are owned by one and actually used by another one as per an internal agreement, this information is not required to be disclosed by private or publicly-listed companies meaning ultimate ownership cannot therefore be identified. [29]

For this reason, experts consider that a reasonable, non-technical individual would not be able to ascertain who effectively owns and ultimately controls the media organisation, from the information available. [1]

Influence of advertising financing

As advertising is an important income for media providers and the allocation of advertisements may influence editorial policies or weaken certain media rather than others, media service providers (broadcasters) shall report their monthly commercial advertisement income to the RTÜK, by the 20th day of the following month. [1]

The distribution of public funds on advertising is existentially an important source of income for smaller papers but the relative data remain hidden. For instance, the request of information on this topic by the Media Ownership Monitor was refused by the Turkish Right to Information Assessment Council, citing “trade secrets” as a reason. [30]

Following the coup attempt, on October 5, 2016, regulations regarding the Press Advertisement Institution ( Basın İlan Kurumu - BİK)- the authority managing public announcements and advertising- were changed. According to this contested regulation, [31] any news outlet that employs a journalist who is being tried on terrorism related charges will not be given state advertising, unless the employee is fired from the media organization in five days. [30] [8]

Civil society initiatives

Referring to the actions to be taken at a domestic level, some experts underlined the importance of encouraging public debate on media ownership, and to enhance media literacy on this topic. [2]

In 2016, Reporters Without Borders, together with the Turkish independent press agency Bianet, launched the project Media Ownership Monitor Turkey to promote transparency in media ownership and to map who owns and controls the media in Turkey, by creating a public available and updated database listing the owners of the main media outlets (both individual owners and media companies) and detailing also the interests and the affiliations of owners into companies or political parties. [32]

Another civil society initiative is the Network Data Compiling , a collective data compiling and mapping project dedicated to pursue the relations between capital and power in Turkey, released on July 14, 2014. [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass media in Turkey</span> Overview of mass media in the Republic of Turkey

The mass media in Turkey includes a wide variety of domestic and foreign periodicals expressing disparate views, and domestic newspapers are extremely competitive. However, media ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few large private media groups which are typically part of wider conglomerates controlled by wealthy individuals, which limits the views that are presented. In addition, the companies are willing to use their influence to support their owners' wider business interests, including by trying to maintain friendly relations with the government. The media exert a strong influence on public opinion. Censorship in Turkey is also an issue, and in the 2000s Turkey has seen many journalists arrested and writers prosecuted. On Reporters Without Borders' Press Freedom Index it has fallen from being ranked around 100 in 2005 to around 150 in 2013.

The mass media in Georgia refers to mass media outlets based in the Republic of Georgia. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Georgia guarantees freedom of speech. Georgia is the only country in its immediate neighborhood where the press is not deemed unfree. As a country in transition, the Georgian media system is under transformation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Censorship in Turkey</span> Overview of censorship in Turkey

Censorship in Turkey is regulated by domestic and international legislation, the latter taking precedence over domestic law, according to Article 90 of the Constitution of Turkey.

Mass media in Albania refers to mass media outlets based in Albania. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Albania guarantees freedom of speech. Albanian media are quite diverse, although politicised, and often influenced by business and political interests.

The mass media in Armenia refers to mass media outlets based in Armenia. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. Armenia's press freedoms improved considerably following the 2018 Velvet Revolution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass media in Bosnia and Herzegovina</span>

The mass media of Bosnia and Herzegovina refers to mass media outlets based in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). Television, radio, magazines and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina guarantees freedom of speech, although political and business pressures - coupled with administrative fragmentation - still hinder the independence of journalists and media outlets.

The mass media in Bulgaria refers to mass media outlets based in Bulgaria. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Bulgaria guarantees freedom of speech. As a country in transition, Bulgaria's media system is under transformation.

The mass media in Cyprus refers to mass media outlets based on the island of Cyprus, including both the Republic of Cyprus (RoC) and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues.

The mass media in North Macedonia refers to mass media outlets based in North Macedonia. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of North Macedonia guarantees freedom of the press and of expression, yet they are not upheld impartially by the authorities. As a country in transition, North Macedonia's media system is under transformation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass media in Moldova</span>

The mass media in Moldova refers to mass media outlets based in the Republic of Moldova. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Moldova guarantees freedom of speech. As a country in transition, Moldova's media system is under transformation.

The mass media in Montenegro refers to mass media outlets based in Montenegro. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Montenegro guarantees freedom of speech. As a country in transition, Montenegro's media system is under transformation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Radio and Television Supreme Council</span>

Radio and Television Supreme Council, also known in short as RTÜK, is the Turkish state agency for monitoring, regulating, and sanctioning radio and television broadcasts. RTÜK was founded in 1994 and is composed of nine members elected by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. RTÜK is located in Ankara and maintains local offices in Istanbul, Izmir and Diyarbakir.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass media in Kosovo</span>

The mass media in Kosovo consists of different kinds of communicative media such as radio, television, newspapers, and internet web sites. Most of the media survive from advertising and subscriptions.

Internet regulation in Turkey is primarily authorized under the Electronic Communications Law (ECL) and the Internet Act and carried out by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA).

Most Azerbaijanis receive their information from mainstream television, which is unswervingly pro-government and under strict government control. According to a 2012 report of the NGO "Institute for Reporters' Freedom and Safety (IRFS)" Azerbaijani citizens are unable to access objective and reliable news on human rights issues relevant to Azerbaijan and the population is under-informed about matters of public interest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transparency of media ownership in Europe</span>

Transparency of media ownership refers to the public availability of accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date information about media ownership structures. A legal regime guaranteeing transparency of media ownership makes possible for the public as well as for media authorities to find out who effectively owns, controls and influences the media as well as media influence on political parties or state bodies.

Transparency of media ownership refers to the public availability of accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date information about media ownership structures to make possible for media authority and the wider public to ascertain who effectively owns and controls the media. Between 2011 and 2012, following some concerns on opaque activities which accompanied the process of privatisation of the media in Croatia, the government initiated the reform of the law on transparency of media ownership with the aim to avoid the concealment of information on media ownership structure.

Transparency of media ownership refers to the public availability of accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date information about media ownership structures, to make it possible for media authorities and the wider public to ascertain who effectively owns and controls the media. In Romania, transparency of media ownership is addressed directly in the Constitution and is regulated by a media-specific law, namely the Audiovisual Law no. 504, and by national company law. As for constitutional provisions, even if Romania is among the few European countries that addresses the issue of media transparency directly in the Constitution, the focus is on transparency of financial sources and not on ownership. Nonetheless, despite the constitutional provisions on the right to impose an obligation on the media to make public their sources of finance, the Parliament has never enacted the applicable legislation. The Romanian media-specific law requiring the disclosure of media ownership information applies only to the broadcast sector and provides the disclosure to both a public authority, namely the National Audiovisual Council (CNA) and directly to the public. Finally, the national company law contains provisions regulating transparency of media ownership. It applies to all media which are registered companies and foresees the obligation to publish all the most relevant information on companies' ownership in the Trade Register Company. Overall, even though the Romanian legislation in the field of media ownership transparency is fully aligned with the European standards, in practice sufficient information to assess who effectively owns and ultimately controls the media is not always available.

Transparency of media ownership refers to the public availability of accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date information about media ownership structures to make possible for media authorities and the wider public to ascertain who effectively owns and controls the media. According to the expert Nelly Ognyanova, lack of transparency in media ownership is one of the major problem in the media system in Bulgaria. In Bulgaria there are specific provisions concerning print, electronic media and broadcast media. The relevant law, in particular the Law on Radio and Television and the Law on Mandatory Deposition of Press and Other Works, requires the submission of data identifying the actual owners of electronic and print media and online registers are available to the public. Also, a law imposing restrictions on offshore companies to acquire shares and assets in different fields including the media sector, entered into force in 2014. In addition, under Bulgarian law, media are obliged to provide information about ownership upon request in conformity with the provisions set forth in the Law on Access to Public Information. Despite the existence of these legal transparency obligations, there are several problems concerning, on one side the application of the rules, on the other, the requirements themselves, which are not enough effective in ensuring the disclosure of the actual owners. Also, legal requirements are constantly circumvented and sanctions usually not applied. Moreover, according to experts, the law should not be limited to obligations concerning the ownership, but expand its scope to examine the origin of funding of media outlets as well. Overall, despite recent legislative changes, some loopholes remain, allowing non-transparency as regards to media ownership and funding and making possible to circumvent the law and conceal who the true owners of the media are. According to expert Ognyanova, there are several ways of circumventing the legal requirements: one example is the case of Krasikir Gergov, a former agent of the Communist-era State Security services and owner of advertising agencies that, while acting in the guise of a “consultant”, actually had a share of the ownership and a contract allowing him to exercise control over the newsroom of a media outlet in Bulgaria. According to Professor Georgi Lozanov, a former member of the Council for Electronic Media, the introduction of the Access to Information Law could help in making more transparent the media sector, in particular media ownership and sources of funds which are largely opaque in Bulgaria. "There is no transparency of media capital whatsoever and one never knows what the real situation is [...]. The introduction of the Access to Information Act [...] represented an attempt at bringing the media to supply information about the sources and funds. Because, if you set up a media outlet and sell a product which is directly related to freedom of speech, it is normal to be able to track the business from the very beginning, thai is, to track the genealogy of the message in the business sense", remarked Professor Lozanov.

Media ownership in Turkey is highly concentrated. According to experts, Turkish media ownership structure prevents citizens from receiving reliable information.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 "Transparency of Media Ownership- The Legal Framework. Turkey". scribd.com. Access Info Europe. 2013. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Craufurd-Smith, R.; Stolte, Y. (2014). "The Transparency of Media Ownership in the European Union and Neighbouring States: Report on a Project by Access Info Europe and the Open Society Program on Independent Journalism" (PDF). research.ed.ac.uk. Open Society Foundation. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
  3. ↑ Sözeri, Ceren (2013). "The media ownership in Turkey and its advantages". academia.edu. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  4. ↑ "Media Owners". turkey.mom-rsf.org. Reporters Without Borders, Bianet. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  5. 1 2 "Networks of Dispossession". mulksuzlestirme.org. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  6. ↑ Tunç, Asli (November 30, 2015). "Media integrity report: Media ownership and financing in Turkey". mediaobservatory.net. South East European Media Observatory. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  7. ↑ Yesil, Bilge (July 2016). "Media in New Turkey. The Origins of an Authoritarian Neoliberal State". rcmediafreedom.eu. University of Illinois Press. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  8. 1 2 Muižnieks, Nils (February 15, 2017). "Memorandum on freedom of expression and media freedom in Turkey". wcd.coe.int. Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  9. ↑ "Trustee Appointed to Cihan News Agency". Bianet. March 8, 2016. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  10. ↑ "Trustee Appointed to Koza Holding". Bianet. October 27, 2015. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  11. ↑ Akgül, Elif (October 29, 2015). "Map of Media Ownership in Turkey". Bianet. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  12. ↑ Cetingulec, Mehmet (November 2016). "What's next for hundreds of companies seized by Turkish government?". Al Monitor. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  13. ↑ Doğan, Zülfikar (October 2016). "How Turkey's government became the country's top tycoon". Al Monitor. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  14. ↑ Ersoy, Ercan (November 30, 2016). "Turkey Hires Advisers to Sell $10 Billion of Seized Firms". Bloomberg News. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  15. ↑ "OLAĞANÜSTÜ HAL KAPSAMINDA BAZI DÜZENLEMELER YAPILMASI HAKKINDA KANUN HÜKMÜNDE KARARNAME". resmigazete.gov.tr (in Turkish). Resmi Gazete. February 9, 2017. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  16. ↑ "New gov't decree paves way for sale of companies seized by state from critics". Turkish Minute. February 9, 2017. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  17. ↑ "Law No. 6112 on the Establishment of Radio and Television Institutions and Their Broadcasts". lawsturkey.com. February 15, 2011. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
  18. ↑ "Law No. 5651 on Regulating Broadcasting in the Internet and Fighting Against Crimes Committed through Internet Broadcasting". wipo.int (in Turkish). May 4, 2007. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
  19. ↑ "Opinion on Law No. 5651 on Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed by Means of such Publication ("The Internet Law")". venice.coe.int. Venice Commission, European Commission for Democracy through Law. June 10–11, 2016. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
  20. ↑ "Media Ownership Monitor Turkey". turkey.mom-rsf.org. Reporters Without Borders. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
  21. ↑ "'Who Owns the Media in Turkey?' – Media Ownership Monitoring Project". seenpm.org. South East European Network for Professionalization of Media. October 27, 2016. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
  22. ↑ Tunç, Asli (June 21, 2015). "Monitoring EU Guidelines in Turkey: Instruments of political propaganda and censorship". mediaobservatory.net. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
  23. ↑ "P24 publishes a report on Turkey's media watchdog - for lawmakers". mediaobservatory.net. P24 Platform for Independent Journalism. May 12, 2016. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  24. ↑ "Legislation on the Right to Information" (PDF). bedk.gov.tr. REPUBLIC OF TURKEY, PRIME MINISTRY, The Review Board of Access to Information. December 1, 2014. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  25. ↑ "Turkish Commercial Code (Law No. 6102)". wipo.int (in Turkish). January 13, 2011. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  26. ↑ "Communiqué on the Principles of Financial Reporting in Capital Markets, No. 26842" (PDF). .access-info.org. April 9, 2008. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  27. ↑ "Public Disclosure Forum" (PDF). borsaistanbul.com. Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE). November 2011. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  28. ↑ "Capital Markets Board of Turkey". cmb.gov.tr. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  29. ↑ "Turkey TMO Consultation". access-info.org. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  30. 1 2 "(Political) Control over Media Funding". turkey.mom-rsf.org. Media Ownership Monitor- Turkey: Reporters Without Borders, Bianet. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  31. ↑ Regulation No. 29848, October 5, 2010, Art. No. 110.
  32. ↑ "Media Ownership Monitor Turkey". turkey.mom-rsf.org. Reporters Without Borders, Bianet. Retrieved March 27, 2017.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.