Terror has once again become the main topic for countries around the world. The attacks that came week after week also presented us with a very wide selection of coverage from different media organizations. This allows us to draw comparisons, find discrepancies and, most important of all, point out the ever-present hypocrisies.For the last two weeks we have been criticizing the general attitude in media of serving terrorism by emphasizing the effects of attacks and spreading an air of uncertainty. While we expect media to hold a unified front against terror, we find that not all terror attacks are equal. I am not talking about the sheer size of coverage an attack gets. After all, the disparity in the outcry between terror attacks in the West compared to those in the Middle East is a recurring problem. But this time it seems that terrorists themselves also receive different treatment in the media. Let me elaborate.This month Turkey faced two terror attacks in its major cities. One took place in Ankara on March 13, killing 37 people and injuring 127 more. The attack came after a car bombing in the same city on Feb. 17 that claimed the lives of nearly 30 people and injured over 60. Both of these attacks were carried out by the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons (TAK), a group with ties to the PKK terrorist organization. In both attacks the victims were Turkish and mostly civilians.In March 19 terror struck in Istanbul, killing four and injuring 36 on internationally known İstiklal Avenue that was carried out by DAESH. Two dual Israeli-U.S. nationals, one Israeli and one Iranian were killed in the attack. This attack also bore similarities to another suicide bombing that took place in Istanbul earlier this year on Jan. 12. Its location was another tourist spot, Sultanahmet Square. The attack claimed the lives of 13, all foreigners, and injured 14. The perpetrator was once again DAESH.Two categoriesWe can categorize these two attacks in two categories in terms of location and perpetrators. DAESH conducted the ones in Istanbul, and TAK carried out those in Ankara.When we look at the current situation we are left with discrepancy and hypocrisy. The Ankara attacks claimed many more lives and injured many but received considerably less press compared to the attacks in Istanbul both in the international and local media. This discrepancy cannot solely be explained away by Istanbul's international status.Another problem is the visible effort to hide the perpetrator of the Ankara attack in the media. The perpetrators of the Istanbul attacks did not receive similar treatment, as it was emphasized that the attackers were members of DAESH. The disproportionality is so great that after a short time people will think that the Ankara attacks were done by DAESH with the media coverage they get along with the lack of press for PKK attacks.Many international media organizations delve into the hypocrisy of painting the PKK as freedom fighters instead of terrorists and try to hide the fact that two suicide bombings were done in their name in Ankara. Former United States Senator Henry Jackson once said: "Freedom fighters or revolutionaries don't blow up buses containing non-combatants; terrorist murderers do. Freedom fighters don't set out to capture and slaughter schoolchildren; terrorist murderers do. Freedom fighters don't assassinate innocent businessmen, or hijack and hold hostage innocent men, women, and children; terrorist murders do. It is a disgrace that democracies would allow the treasured word 'freedom' to be associated with acts of terrorists."It looks like those rooting for the PKK need to learn a thing or two from this quote.Aftermath of BrusselsAnother point of hypocrisy became evident after the latest attack in Brussels. The Turkish media's coverage of the Brussels attack was one of solidarity, upholding the ethical principles media should follow when covering terror attacks. But the same media organizations were not even close to fulfilling the same ethical principles concerning the terror attacks in Turkey. And the principle that took the most beating was photographs of the bloody aftermaths of the attacks running rampart in the printed and web versions of newspapers with rhetoric specifically designed to alienate or offend a specific part of society.

A curious case

The trial of daily Cumhuriyet Editor-in-Chief Can Dündar and Ankara bureau chief Erdem Gül has been a controversial one both in Turkey and abroad at every stage. While some tried to paint this as a story of journalism under attack, the trial itself was telling another story, as the charges were espionage.

British consul-general in Istanbul, Robert Leigh Turner was one of those who were in support of Dündar and Gül. Turner went to the latest court hearing of the two journalists in a show of support, but not without raising a lot of eyebrows.

Considering the U.K. government's crackdown on The Guardian after it received documents leaked by Edward Snowden in June 2013, Turner's support falling to the other side in a similar case leaves behind a somewhat sour taste. After all, at the time The Guardian offices were raided by officers from the U.K.'s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), forcing the reporters to destroy hard drives in front of cameras and threating legal action unless they complied. Just a thought.Updating guidelines for covering terrorism

We have been relying on the guidelines we wrote two years ago when it comes to terror attacks. But mistakes, discrepancies and hypocrisies we have encountered in the last couple of months in our coverage of the terror attacks led us to make certain additions to the list. We always said that covering terror requires expertise, but since that hasn't been forthcoming, reporters and editors should follow these guidelines to meet an acceptable standard, while not falling into the trap of being a useful PR tool for terrorist organizations.

- Share the news of a terror attack with the public, but do not fall into the trap of dramatization and speculation. Do not exaggerate, distort or speculate. Do not share any information with the reader if there is the slightest doubt it is untrue. While in the quest of publishing news reports as quick as possible, do not release incomplete articles that will only fuel uncertainty.

- Do not act as public relations departments for terrorist organizations. This can be done by not preparing articles, reports and editorials that further the goals of the organizations.

- Do not use material produced by terrorist organizations under any circumstance whether the materials are written, audio or visual. All of these are the voice of terrorists, and by relaying them it only provides them with a megaphone. Do not become the carrier of their messages and, of course, do not protect those messages by rationalizing them.

- Some things are what they appear to be. Do not dub murderers "freedom fighters." By using terms like activist, revolutionary, guerrilla, militant and militia when describing them you will start to legitimize them in the eye of the public. Call them what they are -- terrorists.

- Do not try to instill an idea, purpose, public identity or importance to terrorist organizations. Writing emotional stories about terrorists only acts as promotion for the organizations and encourages people to support or even join them.

- Do not pay undue attention to the nationality of terrorists, their language, ethnicity or religion. Establishing relations between terror and another identity group only alienates the said group and misses the principal point that terrorists forego their other identities in favor of their organizations. Do not discriminate between terrorists.

- Do not play into the hands of terrorist organizations by publishing bloody photographs of attacks. Doing so helps them spread fear, terror and hopelessness. Do not cause public indignation.

- Do not violate the rights of those mourning at funeral ceremonies with close-up recordings or photographs of them crying.

- Do not let terror put a chasm between you and your humanity or democratic values. Do not generalize, alienate or paint a target on a group or segment of society in the heat of the moment.