The International Press Institute (IPI) strongly condemns the Turkish authorities’ media coverage restrictions following the devastating hotel fire in Bolu, which erupted in the early morning hours of January 20, 2025, claiming at least 79 lives. The next day, Turkey’s broadcast regulator issued comprehensive directives that significantly limited the ability of the media to cover the tragedy. It is crucial that media organizations are allowed to report freely in such situations, as independent reporting is indispensable to keeping the wider public and those directly affected informed in a timely manner.
The initial announcement came from Ebubekir Şahin, the chair of Turkey’s national broadcast regulator, RTÜK, who directed media organizations to report only information from official sources. At the request of the Bolu Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Bolu 2nd Criminal Court of Peace imposed a broadcasting ban regarding the disaster. Authorities claimed the ban was necessary to protect public order and ensure the judiciary’s authority and impartiality, citing what authorities claimed was incomplete evidence and the spread of misinformation in the media. Additionally, RTÜK issued a press statement through WhatsApp groups for journalists detailing these restrictions.
The restrictions specifically prohibited:
- Independent reporting from the scene
- Interviews with victims’ families or witnesses
- Expert analysis or commentary
- Publication or broadcasting of images from inside the hotel
- Any information not provided by official sources
Authorities justified these measures as necessary to prevent misinformation and protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation. But these restrictions clearly interfere with the media’s ability to cover this tragedy independently for the benefit of the public, and especially in light of potential safety violations that may have contributed to the high death toll.
The broadcast ban remained in effect until the next day, when it was lifted by the same court that had imposed it. During this period, some media outlets were unable to report independently on the incident due to the ban. A notable case involved a reporter on the ground who, when asked about the potential reasons behind the fire, responded, “I cannot respond since there has been no official statement on this,” as required by the restrictions.
Pattern of media restrictions in times of crises
RTÜK serves as a primary censorship mechanism for the Turkish government, consistently imposing fines and suspensions on independent broadcasters. In a similar instance, following the devastating earthquake in southeastern Turkey on February 6, 2023, RTÜK Chairman Ebubekir Şahin warned journalists and broadcasters of their legal duty “not to share information which harms the search and rescue efforts in the earthquake area and causes panic and disinformation.”
Şahin had justified these actions by stating, “It is not possible for us to ignore the organizations that make manipulative broadcasts with malicious intent,” claiming that certain news coverage had interfered with earthquake zone operations.
RTÜK has also previously restricted media coverage of other disasters, including fining broadcasters for their reporting on the 2021 Turkish wildfires. These patterns of media restrictions raise serious concerns about media freedom and the public’s right to information during crises in Turkey, particularly regarding matters of public safety. Ensuring the free flow of information while addressing disinformation is essential for fostering public trust, informed discourse, and accountability.
“The IPI global network expresses our solidarity with the victims of this tragic fire, the devastating consequences of which are still being felt. This is a heartbreaking disaster. We also extend our support to all journalists covering the loss and devastation”, IPI Executive Director Scott Griffen said.
We urge the Turkish authorities to ensure that all journalists and media can perform their essential role in documenting the aftermath of such disasters without interference – a role which directly supports the public interest. Authorities must foster an environment where public discourse can thrive, rather than using such crises as a means to limit legitimate discussion.
