Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) has published its latest Media Freedom Monitoring Report, focusing on the first half of 2025 and one of the countries in focus is Turkey. The results paint a sobering picture with 64 reported violations in Turkey between January and June 2025, and in these incidents at least 157 individuals working for media or outlets were impacted. When considered in a historic perspective, it is possible to say that these cases are not isolated abuse incidents but part of a systematic strategy instrumentalising judicial and security organs to collaborate with the government’s efforts to set an ever narrower landscape for free expression in the country.
The Symbolism of Imamoğlu’s Arrest
Istanbul Metropolitan Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu who has been appearing as one of the most popular political figures in the country that could potentially replace Erdoğan as the president, was named as main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) presidential candidate with a primary election in March 2025 during which over 15 million people had cast their ballots. However the presidential candidate was first stripped off his university diploma -a prerequisite to stand in presidential elections in Turkey- and then arrested on charges of corruption and connections to terrorism. While he is a high-profile target personally, his arrest became trigger for widespread repression across the country, from judiciary to the police, to the media regulator and targeting of digital platforms operating in Turkey.
The journalists and media workers who had been reporting on the protests that followed İmamoğlu’s arrest, became direct victims of the police’s attacks on the media. In only one week, there were 19 incidents reported to the Mapping Media Freedom monitoring database. Most of these incidents were a direct result of police violence during the demonstrations that had been taking place across the country. When journalists identified themselves -loud and clear- as members of the press, this no longer provided any shield. In fact, for a long time the police forces in Turkey had been disregarding the journalists’ declarations of being members of the press and they have been treated as back-up for the protest crowd and have been treated in a “punishing” sense for bearing witness to excessive use of force.
The Courts as Main Perpetrators
Almost half of the press and media freedom violations reported in Turkey were perpetrated from judicial bodies. While the courts should be expected to safeguard free expression and media freedom, in the Turkish case they are the biggest violators with 48.4% of all reported incidents against journalists showing investigations, convictions, prison sentences and suspended sentences. During this period we have also observed an increase in the judicial control orders and house arrest for journalists which has been appearing more frequently.
Yet, as of the mid-2025 there were 17 journalists in prison in Turkey, while many others faced ongoing proceedings under vague and sweeping charges, such as insult to the president or membership to a terrorist organisation. The judiciary in Turkey thus assumes the role of political gatekeeper instead of merely passing judgement based on the legal framework and adhering to Rule of Law standards. The judiciary’s actions in Turkey have been constraining any critical voice before they have a chance of penetrating the public discussion even.
How to Police the Narrative: Force and Regulation
A third of the media freedom violations in Turkey were committed by police and state security forces, which makes Turkey’s media environment to resemble more of a battlefield than a more civil struggle area. The physical assaults against journalists targeted at least 22 people and almost all these cases took place when journalists were covering sensitive events. These attacks against the media not only injure and silence the individual journalist but also send shockwaves through newsrooms and aspiring journalists, intimidating a wider scope of the media than the one who gets assaulted.
However brute force is not the only means that the government is targeting the media. The media regulator Radio and Television Higher Council (RTÜK) has played its role in targeting critical media outlets, reinforcing the coercive landscape by threatening to revoke broadcasting licenses, issuing broadcast bans and imposing heavy monetary fines. RTÜK insists that the broadcasters rely solely on the official statements made by the government and this deeply contradicts the journalistic principle of independent verification and is considered a direct intervention into journalistic processes.
The Shrinking Digital Space
Following İmamoğlu’s arrest, social media platforms were also restricted, presenting the will to control circulation of information in society in times of crisis, for the governing alliance. While the police attempt at controlling the flow of information at the street level, the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) and other government bodies target the digital space which gives way for rumours to spread in addition to the official statements of the government. With the conventional media being almost completely under government control and showing hostilities towards dissenting voices, the digital platforms are the only remaining space for any understanding of media pluralism. However, in the digital space also one can see more and more presence of progovernment narratives, through direct control of the information space and algorithmic pressure against independent media’s publications.
A Judiciary Weaponized Against Democracy
MFRR’s latest Media Freedom Monitoring Report confirms the long-standing trend in Turkish media landscape that the judiciary has become the primary violator targeting media freedom rather than serving as the guarantor for the principles of democracy. At the moment we can see a joint front against independent journalism consisting of courts, police and media regulators; this assault on independent media may lead to a collapse in the public sphere if the society is denied the crucial information to base their decisions on. When one looks more closely at the İmamoğlu case in Turkey it is possible to see how closely political stakes are positioned with the repression against the media.
Looking at the developments in the rest of Europe, especially in countries where judicial independence is under threat, the dynamic in Turkey presents a warning case. Media freedom does not erode overnight, and sometimes this erosion is embedded within the very institutions tasked with protecting the sphere of rights and liberties, transforming them into instruments of power, allowing the capture of the media field. In Turkey, this transformation appears almost complete, and unless challenged, it risks becoming permanent and one only needs to look at history when such structures solidify in one country to see how it would export and expand these views in other countries. The downfall in Turkey should concern not only the country but a much wider region, for whom the Turkish example should ring alarm bells.