The press meeting was held in front of the Garipoğlu Holding building in Istanbul in response to harsh reactions in the media, which had previously granted Karabulut enormous support, after he demanded money from the suspect’s family. The press meeting was Karabulut’s attempt to clarify his reasoning about the money.
This press meeting was arguably the worst day for the media since the murder, although the media’s approach to the case has long been questionable. The role of the media and the behavior of its members during high-profile cases is a controversial issue. By examining the media’s coverage of this tragedy, answers can perhaps be found as to why the media has behaved in such a seemingly insensitive manner.
Can Dündar, columnist for daily Milliyet, described the media coverage: “The story started as a tragic murder report but gradually turned into a performance of social insanity. We did not touch the thorny parts of the incident. The beautiful girl whose head was cut off and her father’s pain were enough,” he wrote.
“The approach of the media was so wrong from the beginning,” said assistant professor Esra Arsan of Bilgi University’s Communications Faculty. “It should not be presented in this tabloid way,” she said. “It is like a soap opera. There is blood, there is love, ambition, sex… It is like a complete meal.”
Habertürk has run some of the most gruesome stories about the case and shown some of the greatest determination to follow the story. It ran a front-page photo of the murder weapon covered with blood and hair on June 12.
“Everyone should know the violence that happened. Everyone should follow this story. Young people should be careful when choosing their friends,” wrote Fatih Altaylı, editor in chief of daily Habertürk, in explaining the reasoning for running the photo. “The expressive strength of this photo says far more than thousands of sentences about the identity of the ‘hidden suspect’ and the ‘method of the murder.’ If society sees this picture, everyone will understand that the people who are involved in this crime but want it to go unpunished are really what we are covering,” he wrote. Later, on the top of its June 23 front page, the newspaper ran the photo of the guitar bag in which the head of the victim was found. The cover of the bag was open and the head was inside, wrapped in a white nylon bag.
“Presenting the bloody murder weapon or presenting the family’s behavior and rage like that, that’s a reality show, not news,” said psychiatrist Burhanettin Kaya of the Turkish Psychiatry Association, adding that the media wants higher ratings more than it wants to inform people. Kaya also warned that repeating the details of the murder would both traumatize some while desensitizing others to violence.
Sensation and tragedy works
In this case, the media’s coverage serves as a prime example of how the press looks for tragedy and sensation rather than seeking to inform people about recent developments. “I found the media’s approach dramatizing rather than informative. The media should act much more responsibly,” said Professor Arsan.
Professor Yasemin İnceoğlu of Galatasaray University’s Communication Faculty said: “The news stories about this case are unfortunately given in a sensational way, focusing on the tabloid side of the story. Rather than informing the public, we see story headlines and unnecessary details that tickle people’s curiosity.” Everything private about this was made public, she said, adding that MSN dialogues between the suspects and the victim, the victim’s text messages with another man, the autopsy report, sperm found in her underwear and photographs of the victim wearing a miniskirt have all been published. “The last movie that the suspect and the victim saw, [horror film] My Bloody Valentine, was one of the most popular parts of this violent scenario,” she said.
Yavuz Baydar, columnist and ombudsman for the daily Sabah, said that the media searched for the most sensational aspects of the story and even exaggerated some of them. Details irrelevant to the murder and aspects of the victim’s private life should not have been included in news stories, he said.
A main turning point in the story came after the press reported that Süreyya Karabulut had demanded money from the suspect’s family. The family asked the victim’s father how to make amends for all that has passed (helalleşmek) and Karabulut said he would accept on three conditions. One, the Garipoğlu family should surrender Cem Garipoğlu. Two, they should build a hospital or a school in the name of Münevver Karabulut. And three, they should give 3 million euros to Süreyya Karabulut.
It was this third point that created the media uproar, even though later on Karabulut said he would use the money to fight multiple sclerosis because his wife suffers from the disease.
Habertürk had one of the harshest reactions against Karabulut. The daily has closely followed the case from the first day, even offering 30,000 Turkish Liras to anyone who can find the suspect. Editor-in-chief Altaylı wrote in his column that he is the father of Münevver Karabulut from now on. “We are following this case not for Süreyya Karabulut, but for Münevver and victimized people like Münevver. I want her killer to be arrested. Süreyya Karabulut might contest the claim, but from now on I am the father of Münevver,” he wrote.
When the issue of money was on top of the agenda, journalist Cüneyt Özdemir said he had something critical to disclose. He said he offered to publish a book written by Süreyya Karabulut about Münevver, but that the first thing her father asked was how they would share the income, which further inflamed the debate in the media. “I believe Özdemir’s statement was very unjournalistic. His attitude was as though he sought to punish Karabulut: ‘My writing will ruin you. I will show society that you are unethical.’ But we are trying to help solve the murder, not to understand how ethical the father is,” Professor Arsan said.