Commentary
Marc Pierini
{
"authors": [
"Marc Pierini"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [
"Turkey’s Transformation"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Europe",
"Türkiye"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Democracy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Mehmet Ali Birand and Press Freedom
Journalist Mehmet Ali Birand never focused his analyses on personalities but rather on subject matters and in doing so, he avoided excessive polarization and opted to look at the future with hope.
By Marc Pierini
Published on Jan 21, 2013
Source: Hürriyet Daily News
The day after I took up my duties in Ankara in November 2006, I asked my press officer who were the “big names” in Turkish journalism. Mehmet Ali was of course at the top of the list, so within a couple of weeks I went to visit him at the Doğan Media Complex in Istanbul. Aware that in the few years before the relationship between the EU Delegation and him wasn’t intense, I started up with a smile: “I am here to fill a gap and to benefit from your expertise in the EU-Turkey relationship” (of which he was a major expert, as everybody knows). He replied with his legendary laughter and we became instant friends. Ever so after, I was able to see him regularly, either one-on-one in his office overlooking one of Istanbul’s busiest highways or in my press lunches with a small group of “regulars” whom I was so fond of.
What struck me with Mehmet Ali was his even-tempered approach to all things and, when confronted with hot pieces of news, his way of stepping back, pausing and coming up with a naturally “mature” analysis. Never bowing to influence, never excessive in his comments, always honest to his interviewee (for an ambassador, this is a defining characteristic), he was a star for the diplomatic corps and an example for Turkish journalists, as can be seen in the many tributes paid to him since his demise.Why is Mehmet Ali Birand’s example important in the current debate about advancing press freedom in Turkey? Why should he inspire all those concerned, in the media world and in the political sphere? As a keen foreign observer of Turkey, I would simply answer this: contrary to Turkish political habits, Mehmet Ali never focused his analyses on personalities but rather on subject matters. In so doing, he avoided excessive polarization and opted to look at the future with hope.
Read again his last column about the funerals in Diyarbakır and the Halki Seminary. On both subjects, Mehmet Ali drew attention to the core issues. In Diyarbakır, both the Kurdish side and the state should avoid provocation, he said, and give a chance to the ongoing process of discussion (which they actually did). In Halki, the return of the land to the Monastery Foundation is a great step taken by the government, yet another step is still to come, the opening of the seminary. What is the common thread here? Turkey is rich in its diversity and should patiently organize coexistence and tolerance among all its citizens.
This is exactly what a free press is all about: uninhibited debate that is aimed at making society better and attaining consensus, not fueling hatred. This is exactly Mehmet Ali’s great legacy.
Thank you, friend, and rest in peace.
This article was originally published, in a slightly different form, in the Hürriyet Daily News.
About the Author
Marc Pierini
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Pierini is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, where his research focuses on developments in the Middle East and Turkey from a European perspective.
- Europe Doesn’t Like War—for Good Reasons
- The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for EuropeCommentary
Marc Pierini
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
- Is Frustration With Armenia’s Pashinyan Enough to Bring the Pro-Russia Opposition to Power?Commentary
It’s true that many Armenians would vote for anyone just to be rid of Pashinyan, whom they blame for the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, but the pro-Russia opposition is unlikely to be able to channel that frustration into an electoral victory.
Mikayel Zolyan
- Will Hungary’s New Leader Really Change EU Policy on Russia and Ukraine?Commentary
Orbán created an image for himself as virtually the only opponent of aid to Ukraine in the entire EU. But in reality, he was simply willing to use his veto to absorb all the backlash, allowing other opponents to remain in the shadows.
Maksim Samorukov
- The Afghanistan–Pakistan War Poses Awkward Questions for RussiaCommentary
Not only does the fighting jeopardize regional security, it undermines Russian attempts to promote alternatives to the Western-dominated world order.
Ruslan Suleymanov
- After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?Commentary
The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.
Bashir Kitachaev
- Tokayev’s New Constitution Is a Bet on Stability—At Freedom’s ExpenseCommentary
Kazakhstan’s new constitution is an embodiment of the ruling elite’s fears and a self-serving attempt to preserve the status quo while they still can.
Serik Beysembaev
