There is a criticism that has been directed at the art community for years: Powerful and established names block the way for newcomers. These allegations are sometimes whispered backstage, sometimes openly voiced. For example, the alleged arguments between İbrahim Tatlıses and Mahsun Kırmızıgül, and even the scenes that were implicitly depicted in the movie productions of a certain period... Again, the allegations about Erol Köse that he blocked the way for names such as Doğuş, Gülşen and Naz (singer)...
These debates are not new. But the question is: Is this situation unique to the art world?
Of course not.
Today, we see a similar picture in a much more critical area, the world of press and television, which directly affects public opinion.
In theory, there is only one criterion for being a commentator on a TV channel: knowledge, experience and merit.
In practice, things are quite different.
When you look at the screens today, you see the same names appearing as “experts” under different titles.
-There is a crisis in the Middle East, everyone is a Middle East expert
-Russia-Ukraine war breaks out, the same people are Russia experts
-There is tension in the Balkans, Balkan expert
-Europe has an economic crisis, European expert
-Africa spoken, Africa expert
-Even Greenland comes up, suddenly Greenland experts appear
The problem is this:
A significant number of these people do not know even the basics of the geography they are talking about in any depth.
If you ask them to show you where Greenland is on a map, they can't.
If you ask how many countries there are in the Middle East, they cannot count.
But they are on the screen the most.
Why?
Because it is not about expertise, it is about access.
Reference Mechanism: A System that Trumps Merit
Most of the time it is not the CV that determines whether a commentator can be on the screen or not.
Who is the reference is decisive.
This reference mechanism is based on a network of relationships, often far from merit.
People who have gotten to a certain point through relationships apply the same method to others. Thus a vicious circle is created:
-Loyalty instead of merit
-Intimacy instead of knowledge
-Connection instead of competence
Conclusion: The screens are opened not to real experts, but to “friends with friends” or "....".
The press of the government, the press of the opposition.
From the outside, the media appears to be divided:
Channels close to the government and channels close to the opposition.
But it is now necessary to state the truth clearly:
They're the same.
Let's put names clearly at this point:
Channels close to the CHP:
Here the picture is clearer.
No space will be opened for anyone other than the names determined by the CHP Headquarters.
If you criticize, you don't exist. If you support, you are in.
Channels close to the AK Party:
A phone call, a suggestion, a “request”...
A call from the AK Party Headquarters, the Külliye or a member of parliament can determine whether a name appears on the screen or not.
Most of the time it is not even questioned. “It came from above” and that's the end of it.
But it must also be made clear:
The functioning of pro-government channels is not entirely one-dimensional.
You are not automatically excluded because you criticize the government.
Criticize the government as much as you want, even use very harsh expressions against Mr. President on other channels, but this alone does not prevent it most of the time.
It is yet another mechanism that is decisive:
A phone call...
“This person should not come out”...
And at that point the door closes.
The result does not change:
It is politics that opens and closes the door, and it is always the same people who enter.
A Question of Kings More Than Kings
The most striking point is this:
This system is often not directly from the political will,
“It feeds on a ”more royalist than king" mentality.
Some people feel empowered, even if they have not been given the authority.
They close doors, eliminate names, create lists on their own initiative.
And so individual initiatives become a systematic mechanism of obstruction.
Now you'll say: “How do you get out?”
Those who know me know me.
My surname has become my character.
Eptemli means to say what one knows directly, without twisting and turning.
I did not bow down to anyone.
When I appeared on channels close to the opposition:
-I praised what the opposition did right
-I openly criticized your wrongdoing
In the same program:
-I also said what the government did right
-I also criticized what was wrong
On channels close to the government:
-I praised what the government did right
-I criticized your wrong again
And the same way:
-I also said what the opposition did right
So I didn't speak according to the wind, I spoke according to the truth.
In short, I have been on exceptional channels within this system.
And I would like to emphasize this:
I did not charge a penny from any channel I appeared on, I did not demand any expenses.
I did not speak with any expectation or calculation.
Grouping within the Press
Another dimension of the problem is the culture of grouping within the media.
-In some groups, money and economic relations are at the forefront
-In some groups, the crony-sergeant relationship is decisive
And here it is particularly important to underline:
Who is involved in this system with money, who is involved in this system with friends and acquaintances... let me keep that for now.
But the result does not change:
The doors are often closed for outsiders, independent and truly competent figures.
Conclusion An Invisible Elimination System
At the point we have reached today, the problem is not only “who is on the screen”.
The question is who is systematically excluded.
Unless this structure changes:
-Real experts will remain invisible
-Public opinion will be condemned to limited and repetitive voices
-Media will move away from being the mirror of society
Of course there are exceptions.
There are still managers and channels that are truly merit-based and capable of making independent decisions.
But when you look at the system as a whole, the picture is clear:
The way to get on the screen is not through knowledge, but through relationships.
And without a change in this order, it is impossible to speak of a truly fair competition neither in the art world nor in the press.