In an evolving media landscape in Turkey that continues to blur the line between journalism and activism, two seasoned figures in the field, Dr. Can Ertuna and Hakan Çelenk, call for caution. They argue for a clear demarcation between the two roles, warning that failure to do so may undermine journalistic credibility and the core tenet of impartial news reporting. "Journalism and activism are separate domains that should not overlap," asserted Dr. Can Ertuna, a seasoned journalist and Bahçeşehir University faculty member, amidst the contentious debate on the mingling of these roles post-election. Alongside Hakan Çelenk, Editor-in-Chief of the Onhaber site, Ertuna voiced concerns over the impact of this blurred boundary on the credibility of journalism and the objectivity of news. "Post-election, we've seen some journalists turn into 'political actors,'" Dr. Ertuna noted. "This has set the stage for a debate on journalism versus activism. The crux of the matter here is understanding the difference between critical journalism and direct intervention as activism." According to Çelenk, the conflation of journalism and activism arose from the disappearance of mainstream media, leading to a division within the journalism profession. "Journalists, by nature, are impartial observers," Çelenk stated. "However, the moment there is a direct attack on journalism, they can enter activism, but this is strictly related to their profession." Dr. Ertuna added to this, remarking, "While journalism does indirectly contribute to societal changes by informing the public, it should never mean direct intervention as activism. This directly contradicts the definition and scope of journalism." He further stressed that "being the voice of the silent, the voice of those in disadvantaged situations, should never mean making their propaganda or making propaganda on their behalf." During the 21-year rule of the AKP, journalism in Turkey has come under severe attack, pushing many journalists to choose sides in the political spectrum. Çelenk candidly commented on this saying, "As a result of AKP's authoritarianism, after the attacks on the press and freedom of expression, journalists were compelled to choose a political side." Dr. Ertuna acknowledged that when the press and freedom of expression fields are restricted, journalists may feel justified to turn to activism. However, he warned that this approach can backfire over time. "When a journalist starts engaging with certain focuses with the expectation of economic or social gain, they risk losing their credibility," he said. "In the long run, it also makes them susceptible to being manipulated in political disputes." Both Ertuna and Çelenk believe the resolution to this problem lies in a return to "good journalism." Ertuna argued, "While we have polarization in Turkey's media, the solution lies in practicing good journalism, filled with quality news and critical analysis against propaganda." Çelenk, rejecting the term "opposition journalism," suggested a new direction. "With the disappearance of mainstream media, we have started to face this issue," he said. "The solution lies in transitioning to a new mainstream media order, one that is financially independent and is supported by readers because news is, after all, a necessity."
