For a journalist, the pen is not just a writing instrument; it is also a mirror of the values he or she represents, the worldview he or she defends and, most importantly, his or her professional ethics. Writing for a well-established institution such as Cumhuriyet, which has a long tradition and a place in the social memory, doubles this responsibility.
However, Mine Kırıkkanat's recent use of the term “sword remnant” against former CHP Chairman Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and the process that followed showed once again how easily this responsibility can be ignored.
When Anger Overrides Awareness
In the ordinary course of life, it is the right of every citizen, and especially every journalist, to dislike a politician, to be angry with their policies or to criticize their methods. However, when the fine line between criticism and insult, between analysis and hate speech is crossed, neither journalism nor intellectual depth remains. To use a hurtful expression with heavy historical and social baggage, such as “the remnant of a sword”, and then make a false apology in response to the backlash by saying “I wrote it without knowing its meaning” is an insult to the intelligence of the reader.
What is even more grave is the message immediately following the apology, which declares everyone who reacted as “bad”. This attitude proves that the apology was far from sincere and that the author was actually incapable of controlling his anger.
Criticism is Honor, Insult is Weakness
At this point, we are extremely angry and critical of the failures in the CHP administration, the current situation or the policies of figures like Ekrem İmamoğlu. However, our anger can never be an excuse to turn our pen into a weapon or an insulting tool. Because the writer who addresses the masses from a column should first and foremost remember that the other person is also a human being, has a family and personal rights.
Journalism requires maintaining a certain level of style both when defending the right and expressing injustice. Surrendering to anger as if losing consciousness and then interrupting his articles with the shield of “victimization” is a picture unworthy of the ink of a well-established newspaper.
This means that sometimes the true identity of a person spills out into words when they least expect it. It is tragicomic that those who cannot bear the weight of what spills out of their ink try to lecture society on “ethics”. Criticism has its dignity; those who cannot protect that dignity cause the greatest damage to their own pens and the community they represent. What can we say, everyone does what suits them.