Tweet
IS THE MEDIA PART OF THE PROBLEM OR PART OF THE SOLUTION?
Nicole Pope
Today's Zaman
July 22 2008
Turkey
A few days ago, I was touring the GAP region on a short break. From
Mardin, one of Turkey's architectural treasures, to the pensions at
the foot of Nemrut Dag, everywhere local entrepreneurs were complaining
that tourist numbers had declined.
They blamed the decrease on media coverage of events in the region
and felt that newspapers, which would be indignant if anyone suggested
refraining from visiting Istanbul because of the recent attack against
the US consulate, casually produced the image of a war zone when they
described the Southeast. This perception, they felt, was an obstacle
to normalisation and to economic development.
In rural areas of the Southeast, clashes are of course still
regularly costing the lives of soldiers and PKK militants, and it
was with great relief that we heard of the release of three German
mountain climbers kidnapped in the eastern province of Agri. But while
caution is undoubtedly still needed when circulating in the region,
we encountered no roadblocks on main roads where, 10 years ago,
travelling was like taking part in a hurdle race. The few tourists we
encountered, including a couple of Turkish families who had bravely
chosen to ignore the negative coverage, were very pleasantly surprised
by the friendly atmosphere and by the wealth of cultural treasures
the region had to offer.
Plenty of informed commentators are offering nuanced and constructive
opinions on the Kurdish issue, on rapprochement with Armenia,
on relations with Iraqi Kurds and other contentious issues on the
inside pages of Turkey's newspapers. But the headlines often reflect
an understanding of journalism that seems more intent on fuelling
the flames of nationalism and conflict, with dire consequences for
the country as a whole, than on seeking consensus or attempting to
understand the roots of a problem.
Media organisations are observers of social and political events,
but they also shape public opinion. Worldwide, the media is currently
challenged by global changes, which have given rise to 24 hours media
coverage and instant reaction that is not always very balanced as
well as budget cuts.
In periods of conflict and crisis, media organisations always struggle
to maintain journalistic integrity. In the US, for instance, the
press, shocked by 9/11, was not sufficiently critical of the Bush
administration in the run up to the Iraq war. Finding the right
balance requires frequent self-criticism and questioning.
In Turkey, where a constant sense of threat has been maintained over
the years - communists, Kurds, Islamists have all in turn been the
bogeymen - a large section of the media has felt the need to defend
"national interest" rather than a more objective approach. Whose
interest this really served is unclear, since it mainly created deep
social divisions.
The current turmoil and the polarization over the closure case against
APK and the Ergenekon investigation are allowing the public to see,
with great clarity, the danger of such an approach for the unity of
the country.
The investigation into illegal gangs suggests that some events were
deliberately exploited and distorted to create wrong perceptions. But
there were not alone in manipulating the public, and spreading fear
about the ruling party is not the only issue that has suffered from
misleading coverage. Most of Turkey's perennial problems have at
times been approached from an angle more likley to lead to an impasse
than bring about a solution. As the role of the state, of political
parties and of underground groups is being questioned, media players
too should question the part they've played in fostering instability.
Nicole Pope
Today's Zaman
July 22 2008
Turkey
A few days ago, I was touring the GAP region on a short break. From
Mardin, one of Turkey's architectural treasures, to the pensions at
the foot of Nemrut Dag, everywhere local entrepreneurs were complaining
that tourist numbers had declined.
They blamed the decrease on media coverage of events in the region
and felt that newspapers, which would be indignant if anyone suggested
refraining from visiting Istanbul because of the recent attack against
the US consulate, casually produced the image of a war zone when they
described the Southeast. This perception, they felt, was an obstacle
to normalisation and to economic development.
In rural areas of the Southeast, clashes are of course still
regularly costing the lives of soldiers and PKK militants, and it
was with great relief that we heard of the release of three German
mountain climbers kidnapped in the eastern province of Agri. But while
caution is undoubtedly still needed when circulating in the region,
we encountered no roadblocks on main roads where, 10 years ago,
travelling was like taking part in a hurdle race. The few tourists we
encountered, including a couple of Turkish families who had bravely
chosen to ignore the negative coverage, were very pleasantly surprised
by the friendly atmosphere and by the wealth of cultural treasures
the region had to offer.
Plenty of informed commentators are offering nuanced and constructive
opinions on the Kurdish issue, on rapprochement with Armenia,
on relations with Iraqi Kurds and other contentious issues on the
inside pages of Turkey's newspapers. But the headlines often reflect
an understanding of journalism that seems more intent on fuelling
the flames of nationalism and conflict, with dire consequences for
the country as a whole, than on seeking consensus or attempting to
understand the roots of a problem.
Media organisations are observers of social and political events,
but they also shape public opinion. Worldwide, the media is currently
challenged by global changes, which have given rise to 24 hours media
coverage and instant reaction that is not always very balanced as
well as budget cuts.
In periods of conflict and crisis, media organisations always struggle
to maintain journalistic integrity. In the US, for instance, the
press, shocked by 9/11, was not sufficiently critical of the Bush
administration in the run up to the Iraq war. Finding the right
balance requires frequent self-criticism and questioning.
In Turkey, where a constant sense of threat has been maintained over
the years - communists, Kurds, Islamists have all in turn been the
bogeymen - a large section of the media has felt the need to defend
"national interest" rather than a more objective approach. Whose
interest this really served is unclear, since it mainly created deep
social divisions.
The current turmoil and the polarization over the closure case against
APK and the Ergenekon investigation are allowing the public to see,
with great clarity, the danger of such an approach for the unity of
the country.
The investigation into illegal gangs suggests that some events were
deliberately exploited and distorted to create wrong perceptions. But
there were not alone in manipulating the public, and spreading fear
about the ruling party is not the only issue that has suffered from
misleading coverage. Most of Turkey's perennial problems have at
times been approached from an angle more likley to lead to an impasse
than bring about a solution. As the role of the state, of political
parties and of underground groups is being questioned, media players
too should question the part they've played in fostering instability.