An institution at the focus of criticism, RTÜK has issued more than TL 400 billion in fines over the past 10 years. A significant proportion of the fines were issued to “opposition” media outlets. RTÜK member from the CHP quota İlhan Taşcı says, “We have an administration under influence of politics”

 

HAYRİ DEMİR, ANKARA

 

The Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK) was established in 1994 to regulate and supervise radio, television and discretionary broadcasting services. The duties and powers of the Supreme Board are governed by article 34 of the Law 6112 on the Establishment and Broadcasting Services of Radio and Television Channels. According to article 34, the Supreme Council is an impartial public legal entity that is administratively and financially autonomous and is responsible for regulating and supervising the radio, television and discretionary broadcasting services sector. RTÜK independently carries out the duties and uses the powers it was thus granted under its own responsibility.

 

Until 2018, the Supreme Council managed its relations with the government through the prime minister or a minister appointed by the prime minister. However, with the transformation to the “Presidential System” in 2018, RTÜK started to operate under the Ministry of Culture and Tourism.

 

RTÜK’s structure

 

The Supreme Council consists of nine members. The distribution of members by political party quotas is calculated according to the number of MPs of political parties with parliamentary groups in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) and members are elected by parliamentary vote. Members serve for six years, with a third of the members being replaced every two years. Members elect a president and a deputy president from among their number.

 

Currently, the RTÜK governing board has five members from the quota allocated to the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), two from the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and one each from the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) quotas. Decisions are taken by a vote of the members. However, as RTÜK member Ali Ürküt from the HDP quota has been imprisoned pending trial since September 2020 as part of the trial known publicly as the “Kobane case,” he has been unable to attend meetings and therefore the decision-making process.

 

The Supreme Council, which has a majority of AKP members due to the distribution of seats in parliament has often been the target of criticism for the decisions it has taken in recent years. The reason for this is the distribution of penalties, particularly administrative fines, by type of media organization.

 

More than TL 400 billion in fines in 10 years

 

Expression Interrupted has examined RTÜK’s activity reports and compiled a list of the fines issued by the Supreme Council over the last 10 years.

 

The Supreme Council took 15,678 decisions regarding administrative fines between 2013-2022. With these decisions, a total of TL 443,178,623,054 in fines was issued to 3487 media outlets.

 

A majority of the fines were issued to various media outlets for the content of TV serials, as well as “misleading advertising” and broadcasting “in breach of public morality.” However, according to İlhan Taşcı, RTÜK member from the CHP quota since 2017, television channels that broadcast critical content in particular have faced fines due to the content of their news items and debate programs.

 

Taşçı spoke as follows: “Due to my position, that is as a member who strives for freedom of the press on the council, I take an interest in the ‘journalism aspect’ of the issue. This is also what the public is interested in. Although the figures show millions of liras in fines, a majority of this is issued to those who broadcast commercial advertising for the sale of illegal products or the ones that are falsely claimed to be healthcare products. This is why the fines are worth so much. However, when you look at fines under the heading of freedom of the press, all of them are issued to opposition channels.

 

RTÜK’S 1O-YEAR RECORD

YEAR	NUMBER OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINES ISSUED	NUMBER OF FINED ORGANIZATIONS	TOTAL FINE VALUE (TL)
2013	1172	671	50,983,100.00
2014*	1736	288	28,461,280.00
2015	1237	200	25,172,119.00
2016	1240	301	41,195,977.50
2017	1338	345	45,617,800.34
2018	1214	334	37,723,105.40
2019	1529	271	27,568,951.90
2020	2392	421	59,382,126.90
2021	1661	346	55,822,365.70
2022	2159	310	71,251,796.80
TOTAL	15678	3487	443,178,623.54

*Covers the period from January to September 2024.

Source: RTÜK Activity Reports (https://www.rtuk.gov.tr/yillik-faaliyet-raporlari/3738)

 

 

TL 29 million in fines issued to five opposition channels in the first six months of 2023

 

According to data Taşçı has shared with Expression Interrupted, television channels whose broadcasts are on the pro-government line were almost not fined at all in the first six months of 2023. However, Halk TV, KRT, Tele 1, FOX TV and Flash Haber, which are known for their opposition stance, were issued administrative fines worth a total of TL 20,649,194. Among pro-government broadcasters, only Beyaz TV was issued a penalty and a fine of TL 342,526 during the first six months of the current year.

 

In 2022, a total of 54 penalties were issued to opposition broadcasters, of which 23 were issued to Halk TV; 16 to Tele 1; six to KRT TV; four to Fox TV and four to Flash TV.

 

Of the pro-government channels, TGRT was issued two penalties, Beyaz TV and ATV each received one and A Haber, Ülke TV, Kanal 7, TVNET and TV 24 received no fines in 2022. The value of fines issued to channels receiving penalties totalled TL 1,674,000.

 

In 2021, a total of TL 21.5 million worth of fines were issued to Halk TV, Tele 1, FOX TV, KRT and Haber Türk in 71 separate penalties. The same channels were issued a total of TL 10 million in fines in 2020.

 

However, pro-government channels such as A Haber, TVNET and Ülke TV were not issued any fines in 2021 and in 2020 only ATV was issued one administrative fine worth TL 400,000.

 

 

Fines soar during the election period

 

A comparison by year of the administrative fines issued to opposition channels in the last three years shows that the fines issued in the first half of 2023 alone surpassed all the fines issued in the previous years in value.

 

According to Taşçı, the cause of the increase in fines is the elections held in May. Taşçı said that the electoral process was very difficult for broadcasters and RTÜK was influenced by the electoral climate and stated, “RTÜK in a sense went up a gear before the election and became even harsher. The election process was very dynamic. The government was very afraid of losing power. This fear was reflected on RTÜK decisions. RTÜK interpreted all forms of negative and positive critiques of the government as an insult or a stance against the state. Things became so absurd that a person, who is a well-known politician, complained to RTÜK about a news item on TV about them and had the channel penalized by RTÜK, instead of having the news item amended or withdrawn, as would be done under normal circumstances.”

 

Taşçı gave an example on this matter: “There were some claims that appeared on a television channel about [the former mayor of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality] Melih Gökçek. We do not know whether they were true or false. In any case, RTÜK is not a court. Only courts can decide on this, on whether the claims are true or false. However, RTÜK issues penalties before the courts can act. Its justification was ‘fight against broadcasting false news.’ When they say ‘false news’ then they already accept that the claims were false. But they have no documents or confirmation of this and neither could they have any, because RTÜK is not a judicial authority.”

 

So, how does RTÜK arrive at its decisions, including administrative fines?

 

According to information on RTÜK’s website, the supervision of broadcasting content is carried out in three ways. These are “Direct Supervision” by RTÜK experts; “Viewer Supervision” through the evaluation of submissions to RTÜK through the 444 1 178 and ALO 178 hotlines, the e-form on the website, RTÜK Mobil application and the e-Devlet public web platform; and “Self Supervision” carried out by broadcasting organizations themselves using ethical principles and through the viewer representative.

 

Reports prepared by experts on breaches of broadcasting principles are put on the board’s weekly regular agenda. Decisions are taken by majority vote.

 

“The council issues targeted fines by following directives”

 

According to Taşçı, although RTÜK receives thousands of complaints about pro-government media organizations, these do not lead to penalties: “RTÜK’s viewer complaint channels are of course open, but RTÜK carries out its duty of supervision arising from the law even without complaints. On the other hand, no complaints being received about a subject does not mean the broadcast will not be inspected. The Council can act ex officio as per its legal mandate. Of course, there are a lot of complaints about media outlets that are known as pro-government. In fact, I can tell you that there is always a pro-government channel among the top three channels that receive complaints according to the reports on viewer complaints conveyed to us daily. For example, ATV is always on the list. However, when you look at the decisions, the data which I have shared with you, these channels never get penalized. For example, on a pro-government channel, a presenter spoke words to the effect that doctors deserve the violence they face. There were nearly 100,000 complaints about this within a day. We received complaints from nearly 100,000 doctors, physicians and other healthcare workers. And yet, no action was taken regarding that broadcast. The board meets regularly every week. Now, think about it. Up until the present, at least for the period I have been on the Council, there has never been a single report which was refused on the grounds that there was no need for a penalty or any other sanction. Every report we received has led to a fine whether the fine was small or large, or of a high or low proportion. Not a single report has been declined. So, the figures show that RTÜK in fact functions in a top-down manner, with directives being issued from above, according to which reports are prepared and those reports result in penalties once they are brought before the Supreme Council. In short, RTÜK clearly follows directives and issues ‘targeted’ fines.”

 

“What we have is an administration under influenfe of politics”

Concerning the current condition of RTÜK, Taşçı said, “In the past, RTÜK was partially influenced by the political climate, but today it is fully open to political influence; in fact, what we have is an administration under influence of politics. The figures for the penalties issued show this very clearly.”

 

Longest broadcast suspension penalty in RTÜK history

 

One of the most controversial decisions of RTÜK in 2023 was the seven-day broadcast suspension issued to Tele 1. The Council issued the broadcast suspension penalty to Tele 1 in July, over some statements made on air by editor-in-chief Merdan Yanardağ allegedly constituting “inciting the people to hatred and enmity.” Yanardağ was arrested as part of an investigation into his statements in question launched shortly before RTÜK’s decision. Yanardağ has been imprisoned pending trial since 27 June 2023.

 

Taşcı stated that this decision was the longest broadcast suspension penalty ever issued in 27 years of RTÜK’s operations.

 

The television channels most heavily fined by RTÜK are also some of the media organizations whose advertising income is blocked through a variety of means.

 

According to Taşcı, the fines issued by RTÜK cause severe economic bottlenecks for these channels. Taşçı said “These television channels already broadcast with very limited means. Along with their limited means, the almost monthly administrative sanctions issued as fines by RTÜK cause severe economic difficulties for these channels. This inevitably results in measures such as downsizing channels, employing fewer staff, using smaller offices or a single central office.”

 

“Journalism groups should have a say in electing members”

 

Taşcı said the following about re-organizing RTÜK, which in its current form attracts a lot of criticism: “First of all, the method of electing members should be revised. This is because the method of electing members from among the candidates put forward by political parties with parliamentary groups places the Council under political influence, however much you may want to guard it from political influence. Therefore, members should be selected by journalists’ or broadcasters’ groups from among candidates, who, as an absolute condition, have studied journalism or broadcasting and practiced this profession. Of course, there are many aspects to this debate. But at the very least, parliament could elect members from among candidates elected within journalism groups. This would overcome the problem with professional capacity. Secondly, the law contains many subjective expressions. It is inadequate for regulating and supervising today’s approach to broadcasting. In this sense, the law should be revised completely with the facts of the present digital age considered. Another necessary change is to concretely frame open-ended, open to interpretation concepts such as “being in breach of national and spiritual values,” “being in breach of public morality” as well as “violating the principle of the unity of the state with the people” and rendering them not open to interpretation.