t24.com.tr
Ankara Municipality Responds to Concert Spending Investigation
The Ankara Metropolitan Municipality released a statement addressing a probe into concert spending, asserting that prior audits found no irregularities and highlighting inconsistencies in related investigations.
- What are the main claims made by the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality regarding the investigation into concert spending?
- The municipality claims that internal audits and inspections by provincial inspectors found no evidence of irregularities or public harm in concert spending. They also point out that previous audits by the Court of Auditors found no issues and that a comparable event cost estimate from another firm was 56 million TL.
- What are the municipality's concerns regarding the ongoing investigation and what are their expectations for future actions?
- The municipality expresses concern about the selective targeting of its officials while similar cases involving previous administrations remain unresolved, despite substantial alleged damages (e.g., 2.4 billion TL loss from a cable car tender). They expect a fair and impartial investigation, urging prompt action on stalled cases and consistent application of legal measures.
- How does the municipality contrast its spending with that of previous administrations, and what broader issues does it raise about the investigation?
- The municipality states that $33 million was spent on 80 events between 2014-2019 under the previous AK Party administration, compared to $30 million on 426 events since 2019. They allege political bias, citing that similar past cases involving the previous administration have faced delays and inconsistent application of justice, with some cases involving the same individuals preparing expert reports.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The press release frames the investigation as a politically motivated "operation" against the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality, contrasting the current actions with past investigations that allegedly targeted the previous administration. The headline itself, focusing on the municipality's response rather than the initial allegations, is a framing choice. The inclusion of financial figures from previous administrations (33 million dollars spent on 80 events under the AKP, compared to 30 million dollars on 426 events since) aims to create a comparative narrative.
Language Bias
The language used is strongly accusatory toward the investigators and previous administrations. Terms like "different dimension," "politically motivated operation," and repeated claims of selective prosecution or bias towards certain individuals create a biased tone. Neutral alternatives include: describing actions without loaded terms, using passive voice to avoid assigning blame where appropriate, and objectively presenting data.
Bias by Omission
The press release omits details of the current investigation's specifics, focusing more on past cases and alleged biases within the judicial system. The methodology for calculating the claimed 154 million TL loss is not explained. The omitted details include specifics of the current allegations and a full explanation of the evidence supporting claims of political bias.
False Dichotomy
The release presents a false dichotomy by portraying the situation as either a politically motivated attack or a legitimate investigation, ignoring the possibility of other explanations or nuances.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights alleged unequal application of justice, with cases involving certain individuals facing delays or dismissals while others are subject to quicker investigations. The claim that the same experts repeatedly produce reports leading to the closure of cases, particularly those involving specific political figures, suggests a bias that undermines equal treatment under the law. The discrepancy in handling cases with similar accusations of financial misconduct points to a potential systematic inequality in the justice system. The call for fair and impartial investigations reflects a direct effort to address SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities, aiming for equal access to justice and fair legal processes.