RTÜK has a decisive influence on the public's right to information. Its founding purpose of “ensuring freedom of broadcasting” seems to have been replaced by a regulatory approach that defines what can and cannot be said

TANSU PİŞKİN

The Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK) has become part of the routine agenda, especially with the penalties it has imposed over the past two years, and has been accepted as a “punishment body” by those who do not know or remember its history.

However, RTÜK's founding purpose in the 1990s was to prevent unauthorized television channels and private radio stations from broadcasting, to take measures against the unauthorized use of frequencies, and, in short, to regulate the broadcasting sector in response to the disorderly process of private radio and television broadcasting in Turkey and to create a system where competition among broadcasters would be balanced.

In 1994, Law No. 3984, which regulated the principles and procedures regarding the establishment, duties, powers, and responsibilities of RTÜK, was amended in 2011. The subsequent Law No. 6112 on the Establishment and Broadcasting Services of Radio and Television redefined RTÜK's scope. Article 37 of the law defines RTÜK as a public institution that takes the necessary measures to guarantee freedom of expression, the right to information, and diversity of thought in broadcasting services; regulates and supervises the broadcasting licenses of media service providers; monitors the compliance of broadcasting services with legal and technical standards; and imposes sanctions in cases of non-compliance.

However, the process did not quite work out that way. At this point, the legality of the institution's decisions is one of the biggest topics of debate. According to RTÜK member İlhan Taşcı, the board's decisions are political, and the presidency also acts with this motivation.

Taşcı believes that RTÜK has made no effort to promote freedom of expression and is the biggest obstacle to the right to information. He says that the board tries to unlawfully suppress channels that attempt to engage in critical broadcasting and clogs the system.

Press and media organizations also report that RTÜK has been imposing penalties more frequently on critical broadcasts by media outlets such as NOW TV, Halk TV, Tele1, and Sözcü TV. The grounds for these penalties, such as “violation of the principle of impartiality” and “general morality/national values,” are also controversial.

On the other hand, there is an article that grants RTÜK this authority: Article 8 of the RTÜK Law, namely Law No. 6112, which was amended in 2011, which determines the general principles of broadcasting services. Violation of paragraph 1(b) of the relevant article can lead to the revocation of the channel's license and even the closure of the channel.

Article 8b and the debate over “unlimited” authority

Article 8/1-b of the RTÜK Law states:

“Broadcasts that incite hatred and hostility in society by discriminating on the basis of race, language, religion, gender, class, region, or sect are prohibited.”

Although this provision is intended to prevent hate speech, in practice, the vagueness of the definition of “hatred and hostility” allows RTÜK to use it as a broad tool to intervene in critical broadcasts. Some examples show that for RTÜK, “hate speech” is actually “criticism of the government.”

The legal definition of “hatred and hostility” in the same article is also vague, giving RTÜK broad discretion. In other words, the wording remains in a gray area, and penalties are shaped according to the interpretation of officials.

On the other hand, it is not only this clause that makes Article 8 controversial. In recent years, RTÜK has frequently used clauses containing the phrases “Principle of impartiality, accuracy, and separation of news from commentary” (8/1-d), “Contradiction of national and spiritual values” (8/1-e), “Protection of public morality and the family” (8/1-f) in the penalties it has imposed on channels in recent years, particularly using them as a means of punishment in political news, debate, series, and comedy programs.

The process leading to license revocation

What distinguishes Article 8/1-b of the RTÜK Law from other clauses is that it opens the door to a process that can lead to the revocation of TV channels' licenses.

A channel that receives three penalties within one year under this article faces this risk. The process begins with the notification of the first penalty to the channel under 8/1-b. If the channel receives two more penalties under the same article within the following 365 days, it is shut down by RTÜK.

The Board has recently issued various decisions under this 8/1-b provision. Some of these decisions and their justifications are as follows:

- It imposed a 10-day broadcast suspension penalty on Sözcü TV. The decision, notified to the channel on 27 March 2025, cited live broadcasts related to protests against Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (İBB) operations as the reason. RTÜK claimed that the comments in these broadcasts “incited the public to hatred and hostility.” On the night of 9 July, Sözcü TV's screen went dark.

- It also imposed a 10-day suspension on Halk TV. The decision, notified to the channel on 3 July 2025, was based on the comments made by Nuclear Engineer Prof. Dr. Tolga Yarman on the program “Sinem Fıstıkoğlu ile Sansürsüz” (Uncensored with Sinem Fıstıkoğlu). Yarman's statements, “Turkey is not becoming more religious, it is becoming more sectarian” and “If we look at it from the moment the Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge was named, we were incited against Iran,” were deemed by RTÜK to “incite the public to hatred and hostility.” This penalty was later suspended by a court decision.

- Tele1 1 was also given a 5-day screen blackout penalty in July 2025. The reason for the penalty was Merdan Yanardağ's statements on the “4 Questions 4 Answers” program: “July 15 was an Islamist coup attempt. The AKP government is primarily responsible for this coup.” RTÜK claimed that these statements “incited hatred and hostility in society.” On 1 September 1, Tele 1's screen went dark.

Does RTÜK have authority over internet broadcasts?

RTÜK's sanctions against the media are not limited to television channels. In 2019, the Board required platforms broadcasting on the internet to obtain a broadcasting license, and with the entry into force of the regulation titled “Regulation on the Presentation of Radio, Television, and On-Demand Broadcasts via the Internet,” digital platforms also came under RTÜK's supervision.

Furthermore, RTÜK began requiring newspapers that produce internet programs to obtain licenses. It introduced three different license types: “radio broadcasting via the internet,” “television broadcasting via the internet,” and “on-demand broadcasting via the internet.”

Foreign media organizations such as Deutsche Welle and Voice of America, which were forced to obtain licenses, refused to apply and were blocked immediately after the regulation came into effect. Last month (September 2025), BirGün TV, which began a new broadcast period on YouTube, and Cumhuriyet TV, which like BirGün TV does not have a catalog broadcast stream, were also required to apply for a license within 72 hours.

The name that made the “TV extension” exception to the licensing requirement was journalist Fatih Altaylı. In his broadcast on his YouTube channel, he said, "Seventy percent of the public opposes President Erdoğan remaining in office for life. This is not very surprising. Apart from a portion of AKP voters and MHP supporters, there is hardly anyone who supports this idea. This nation is one that has even strangled its sultan when it did not like him. There are many sultans in Ottoman history who were victims of assassination or who are said to have committed suicide.” Immediately after his arrest on charges of ”threatening the president," RTÜK issued a statement. The board gave Altaylı 72 hours to obtain a license for his YouTube channel.

Regulation or pressure?

According to national and international media monitoring and freedom of expression reports, while the board is increasingly distancing itself from its legally mandated duty to “protect freedom of expression and diversity of thought,” the line between regulation and censorship is almost blurred.

According to Expression Interrupted's Freedom of Expression and Press Freedom Agenda reports covering the first six months of 2025, the total fines imposed on opposition channels amounted to TL 36,385,021.

The European Union's 2024 Turkey Report draws attention to RTÜK's practices that cast a shadow over the principle of impartiality in its decision-making processes, while the Media and Law Studies Association's (MLSA) 2024 report, “RTÜK in 2024,” also states that most of the TL 124 million in fines imposed over the past two years were directed at critical news channels.

The reports by the Council of Europe and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) clearly emphasize the role of RTÜK's broad interpretation of Article 8 in Turkey's decline in media freedom rankings.

The Council, which now redefines not only television screens but also the digital face of the public sphere, has a decisive influence on the public's right to information. Its original purpose of “ensuring freedom of broadcasting” seems to have been replaced by a regulatory approach that defines what can and cannot be said.