On June 15, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called on the media not to write or talk about the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which seized Turkey’s consulate on June 11 in Mosul, in northern Iraq, taking all 49 consulate workers hostage, including the consul general. Erdogan claimed that the media’s reporting puts the hostages’ lives at risk. Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc followed up on this warning the next day urging the media not to provoke ISIS with remarks. The Turkish Foreign Ministry even stated that those taken by ISIS are “not hostages,” but “Turkish citizens taken to an unknown location.” In line with heavy pressure to silence the media on the situation, an Ankara court issued on June 16 a gag order ruling that “all kinds of print, visual and Internet media are banned from writing and commenting on the situation” until the Turkish citizens in the hands of ISIS are safely rescued. And Turkey’s Supreme Board of Radio and Television (RTUK) delivered the court’s decision to all media executives early June 17, saying the ban was effective immediately.

While the Turkish media started obeying the court order, Turkey’s main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) filed an appeal on June 17 — the same day the media ban took effect — that there should be no state-imposed censorship on covering the ISIS developments in Iraq and Turkey’s surroundings. Aykan Erdemir, CHP deputy from Bursa, however, sounding pessimistic, said the challenge is not likely to reverse the decision. “This court decision is a politically motivated one where the government solely aims to manage the perceptions of our people in Turkey. Yet, this approach promises to cause our country more problems in the medium and long term,” he told Al-Monitor.

Sinan Ogan, the opposition Nationalist Action Party (MHP) deputy from Igdir, who took the stage at the parliament's general assembly on June 10 — the day before ISIS took Turkish diplomats hostage — and warned that Turkey’s Mosul consulate was being surrounded by radical extremists calling the parliament to act, agreed. “The media should certainly act responsibly during times of crises and pay utmost care not to put the lives of those taken hostage at risk,” he told Al-Monitor. “However, it was the pro-government dailies in particular that reported on critical details about the personal telephone conversations between special force members and their families, directly risking the lives of those in ISIS hands. Or, they reported the names of the tribes with which Turkey is trying to open a back channel in an effort to safely rescue the hostages. This is crucial information that should not have been in the public domain at this stage.” Ogan said, “We, however, unfortunately almost always fail to make a distinction between issues. While we should demand that the media act professionally, making the safe return of these Turkish citizens a priority, it should have been out of question to bring about an all-out media ban on covering the developments in Mosul. On the contrary, people should be well informed about ISIS actions and movements in Iraq.”

Diken, a new online news analysis portal in Turkish, wrote that a lower court first denied the government request for a media ban on developments in Mosul, but that the 9th High Criminal Court had issued the ban. It is the same court that also issued a ban on covering the May 2013 Reyhanli attack; the December 2013 graft probe targeting Erdogan’s role in the corruption and bribery ring; the trucks that were seized in Adana by a local prosecutor’s order carrying questionable supplies to Syria, which eventually appeared to belong to a Turkish intelligence unit operation; and the leaked audio surveillance at the Turkish Foreign Ministry about potential military engagement scenarios in Syria. While commentators in the mainstream media chose silence on the issue a day after the decision became effective, it is clear that no one wants to pay a price for violating a court order.