What actually happened?

In fact, because we had learned that Rojin would take the incident to court, Erol Göka and I had decided not to speak about the incident in which we were "listed" as witnesses. After all, since the Taraf newspaper, among the roughly 20-25 people present in the hall, named only the two of us as having been there, it evidently listed us as "witnesses" in a possible court case. But since the TRT Director General both admitted in public that his statements were "words that overstepped their purpose" and apologized, and since Prime Minister Erdoğan's wife Mrs. Emine and Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç, who is responsible for TRT, called Rojin and expressed their regret about it, I think that in the judicial sense there is no side left to bearing witness. Yet, having witnessed from beginning to end how things reached this point since the start of the incident, we still owe a few explanations.

The first is about our being listed as witnesses to the incident. If naming only the two of us among so many people is an expression of trust in our testimony, so much the better; one must try to be worthy of this trust. But after recounting what happened as it happened, I will also express some opinions I have formed.

First, as written in the Taraf newspaper's report, "closed to the press," in a conversation-like atmosphere that took place in an intimate setting, İbrahim Şahin was answering the participants' questions after a quite lengthy speech. He was answering at length again Orhan Miroğlu's long, commentary-and-assessment-laden questions, first about TRT Arapça and then about TRT Şeş, questions that could even be considered complimentary toward TRT's actions. While talking about the problems he had experienced with TRT Şeş, at one point in the talk he looked around, as in the report, and used those expressions and continued his speech. At the end of the answer Miroğlu thanked Şahin for these long explanations but voiced his criticism by saying "I wish you hadn't used this expression for a female artist."

Whereupon Şahin, taking the floor again, said a few more things about the problems he had had with Rojin in order to justify, in his own way, his expression. Miroğlu, of course, was not convinced and replied in a courteous manner, "still, this doesn't justify your words, it was wrong," and, God knows, he was receiving the approval and appreciation of everyone in the hall, starting with us. There could of course be nothing approvable about that remark. But when an unknown person in the hall made a senseless reaction at this point with "speak for yourself," Miroğlu said something angrily to that person to the effect of "of course I'll speak for myself, could it be otherwise?" and slowly got up and left the hall. His leaving the hall and the moderator's ending of the session happened almost at the same moment.

This has come out a bit like court testimony, but I suppose the format of witnessing requires it.

Let us come to the reporting of the incident. First, regarding the text of the report. One detail of the report text reflected in the Taraf newspaper that does not agree with our testimony is that Miroğlu left the hall in reaction to Şahin's words. Yet the incident was taking place as a mutual conversation between Şahin and Miroğlu, and Miroğlu was voicing his criticisms within reasonable bounds, until someone in the hall, with no occasion whatsoever, said "speak for yourself." This is a small detail, but since a "private meeting" has become public property, it is useful for this too to be known.

The second is about the ethical context of the incident itself becoming news. There is presumably a standard concerning making news of what is said in an environment "known to be closed to the press" (I say "known," since this concerns my own knowledge. In truth, since I joined the meeting a full hour late, I did not hear such an announcement, but the Taraf newspaper's report says so). Granted that most of the guests were journalists and academics and the speaker was the head of a public institution; but in the end, an utterly unapprovable remark was made about someone not present there, the person asking the question had objected as the first-degree interlocutor to this style, criticized it, and said that this style was unbecoming; was it really so right for this "evil word" to be delivered to millions?

A remark heard by 20-25 people, criticized on the spot, answered, and perhaps not approved by anyone in the room except the one who said "speak for yourself," was, had it stayed in the hall, turned into news and announced to millions. Thus that unfortunate word and Rojin's name were mentioned together in the ears of millions of people.

From the moment the incident reached the press, the assessment of it also went as it should have. The Prime Minister and Arınç did what they needed to do, expressed their regret and conveyed their wishes for her recovery. We too say "get well soon" with the sorrow of having witnessed such an incident. As Miroğlu told Şahin, "I wish that remark had not been made," but since it was made, I wish it had not been carried further and that Rojin had not heard it.