Are we really doing Erdoğan wrong?

I get terrified when listening to Erdoğan at rallies; he slams us using each opportunity. If you listen to him it sounds like thousands of campaigns have been started against him, not done to anyone before, and like the prime minister and his Justice and Development Party, or AKP, are worn out by totally false news.

Erdoğan points and reacts to news and comments in such a way that when I reread them I can’t find any exaggeration in them.

Aren’t there any erroneous news or comments? Of course there are. But apologies and necessary corrections have always been made.

But this does not satisfy the prime minister.

He calls for a boycott. He says, "Don’t buy these papers."

I went back and researched but got totally confused. I wasn’t content with this and talked to people who lead the media or who observed over the past 50 years. I made a list of what has been done to former prime ministers. I encountered a completely different picture.

İnönü was a single party chief and was the one who complained the most in his leadership right after the democratic system was introduced. He showed brisk reaction to allegations regarding his brother Ömer İnönü.

Menderes, we all know that criticism from the press directed toward him ended with the military coup on May 27. Compared to present practices, even DP’s weak politics would create enormous reaction in today’s media and Adnan Menderes would be slammed. He wouldn’t hide his anger toward the press instead openly show it but would never have gone as far as calling for a boycott.

Demirel is on the top of the list of those prime ministers who got their share from the media. His taking his wife’s hairdresser, Nur, with them on international visits turned into a scandal. Demirel was probably a prime minister whose caricature was drawn the most among others and who was accused of illegal deeds the most. But despite all that he never attacked the media. He never called for a boycott. He comprehended criticism. He was never angry at reporters and thus stayed friends with them.

Özal. I’m not sure if we can tell all about what he went through with the media. His drummer sun-in-law, Jaguar Zeki, allegations directed toward Ahmet and Efe Özal, Semra Özal’s daisiesÉ Rather than criticize his politics the media shredded Turgut Özal’s family to pieces. Çiller. After her first honeymoon phase was over she was subjected to immense criticism. Most of the campaign against her consisted of her partnership with Erbakan. Turkey had for the first time carried a pious party to power and Çiller was the one to pay the bill.

Yılmaz received his share mostly based on fraud. It was ANAP’s last term and fraud rumors hit the fan. Yılmaz and his party ANAP were buried after this media campaign.

It’s always the same scenario
Further more, these prime ministers did not have any partisan press or TV channels. Poor Demirel was only supported by a translator; all the rest opposed him. There was TRT as a weapon on hand but that did not provide an effective advantage either. Besides, the same scenarios are played in the Turkish political scene over and over again including recent events.

Parties and their leaders while in opposition are carried on shoulders and applauded by the media. The situation continues, especially during the first term, when they become the administration. But in the second term the relationship turns into a blood bath.

Hasn’t it been the same scenario with Erdoğan? Hasn’t the AKP been carried on shoulders by the same media which Erdoğan slams nowadays? Didn’t this honeymoon end with the headscarf issue during the second term?

You see, if I draw up such a balance sheet then I can’t acknowledge him to be right. However the media treated former politicians or whichever relation was persistent it treats Erdoğan the same way and continues the same relationship. It’s Erdoğan himself who is cranky and intolerant to criticism. It is openly understood that he tries to silence and scare us by coming at us. On top of it he is doing this together with a huge partisan press and TV channel. But let’s not forget, similar to the host-traveler relationship, prime ministers come and go but the media always remains.