Voiding of scrutiny and accountability in Turkey: Media and Journalism under the Justice and Development Party
— University of Western Sydney
Abstract
A methodical transformation of the practice of journalism in Turkey began soon after the Justice and Development Party’s (AK Party) sweeping 2002 federal election victory. This is not unusual. Frequently new governments tend to target the media – and journalists in particular – while attempting to establish their political, social and economic agenda. In this political environment, completely void of scrutiny and accountability, journalism and the media are divided into two opposing feudal factions: those that support the AK Party, and those that do not. The media organisations and journalists who support the ruling party are able to access information, while opposing media is left in the dark. The Turkish constitution guarantees freedom of expression, however, this freedom is constantly undermined by a myriad of legal barriers; namely Article 301, which restricts freedom of expression if it is believed to denigrate the Turkish nation. This paper will discuss how the silencing of the media and public discourse in Turkey is systematic. It will contribute to the Australian understanding of international journalism and freedom of expression, in a country where east meets west.
Introduction
Soon after the Justice and Development Party’s (AK Party) sweeping 2002 federal election victory, a methodical transformation of the practice of journalism in Turkey began (Reporters without Borders, 2008). This is not unusual. Frequently new governments tend to target the media – and journalists in particular – while attempting to establish their political, social and economic agenda.
The AK Party pledged to end corruption and voters expected a complete overhaul of the media system. It never came. In Turkish, ‘ak’ is loosely translated as ‘pure’, however, according to Freedom House, an independent non-governmental organisation tracking and “support[ing] the expansion of freedom in the world”, the only media purification to take place since the advent of the Justice and Development Party, has been the ‘purification’ of the minute semblance of freedom of expression that previously existed (Freedom House, 2006).
The 34 percent parliamentary majority gained by the Justice and Development Party was unprecedented – a first for an Islamist political party in the secular nation of Turkey. The party’s success was sealed with its re-election in 2007. It was returned with a parliamentary majority of 46 percent (Kucuk, 2007). Since parliament elects the President, now both Prime Minister and President are AK Party members (Finkel, 2007).
However, Abdullah Gul’s presidential candidacy was contested from the start. Mass demonstrations were sparked in Istanbul and Ankara, and the first round of voting was annulled. According to Andrew Finkel, a journalist who has been working in Turkey since the 1990s, the demonstrations were fuelled by the “weak and divided” opposition (Finkel, 2007). The AK Party does not owe its popularity to the economic forethought that has greatly improved Turkey’s wealth, but rather to the “inability of preceding administrations to break a cycle of incompetence and corruption” (Ibid.). Nonetheless, Gul was elected as the 11th President of the Republic of Turkey.
Historical Background
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948) states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” It is evident that this article is not upheld in Turkey.
The silencing of the media and the lack of public discourse in Turkey is systemic. Journalistic enquiry has been stymied by the constitutional articles created following the 1923 demise of the multi-ethnic and multi-religious Ottoman Empire. Kemal Ataturk, having newly formed the Republic of Turkey, realised the media was essential to the social change required to ensure the new secular nation would not fall (Uysal, 2008). Restrictive constitutional articles were formed, and changes made to the country’s institutional structure and cultural codes to bring forth an era of modernisation and secular nationalism. Importantly, religion was stripped of its public role (Uysal, 2009).
The late modern and post-modern eras brought fewer restrictions on the media, and for the most part, neither the government nor the military interfered with journalistic practice (Satana, 2008). The military has remained reluctant to interfere since. “The military does not overtly manipulate the media anymore. Instead, it occasionally explains itself to the media through dinners and social events,” claims Satana, who describes this as a “courting of the media”, one that involves covert manipulation when it comes to sensitive issues such as government policy (Ibid.).
The media was first used as a vehicle for social change to westernise Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, however, this practice was not used widely again until the paranoia of communism swelled during the Cold War (Satana, 2008). The media has since become a tool for cultural transformation. As a result, in times of conflict the Turkish media tends to blatantly follow the official line of the government rather than setting its own agenda (Terzis, 2008), thereby allowing itself to become a device for political manipulation.
In a political environment better described as a “low intensity democracy”, freedom of expression and journalistic practice are severely dented. While freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 28 of the Turkish constitution (Satana, 2008), it is constantly undermined by a myriad of legal barriers, namely Article 301 (Freedom House, 2004). Article 301 restricts freedom of expression when it is believed to denigrate the Turkish nation, despite recent amendments (European Journalism Centre, 2008).
Now, almost a century on, the Justice and Development Party is again using Turkish media as a driving force for social change. However, rather than making amendments that would strengthen freedom of expression, it is using constitutional articles to present itself as a liberal Islamic party (in response to the nationalist opposition’s attempts to paint the AK Party as a group of fundamentalists) and is pushing the media and journalism to the margins of political discourse (Reporters without Borders, 2008; Uysal, 2008).
Prior to amendments made to the Turkish Penal Code, the Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE) published a review of the draft code in 2005. Miklos Haraszti, the Freedom of the Media Representative, noted 23 aspects of the code that were problematic to freedom of the press. Of these, only seven were amended before the new legal guidelines were passed (Christensen, 2007). Under the code it is now impossible for journalists to expose government corruption without risking prosecution. Even cartoonists can face imprisonment if their work is deemed to endanger “indivisibility of the state” – a hazy offence at best which is not further clarified. The new code contains no provisions for public interest or for the protection of journalists (Christensen, 2007). As a result, Turkey has acquired a reputation for imprisoning large numbers of journalists (Tunc, 2002). In 2005 alone, 157 journalists, publishers and human rights prosecutors were charged for expressing their ideas (Baris, 2006).
Theoretical Background
The mass media is the arena where social concerns are either justified or dismissed (Uysal, 2009). Theoretically, as the independent fourth estate, the media should hold the other three estates – the judiciary, executive and parliament – accountable for their actions (Meadows, 2001). However, in Turkey, the theory of the fourth estate has become just that – a theory. This idealistic form of journalism is no longer practised, nor can it be, due to constitutional articles restricting inquiry into government actions. Most media outlets are merely a mouthpiece for the government; conveying the agenda it wants, and how it wants (Freedom House, 2008).
Agenda-setting theory indicates that while the media does not tell citizens what to think, it does influence what they think about. It assumes a two-step flow in mass communication: from a public relations machine to the media, and then from the media to the public (Mackey, 2001). The selection of news items, and the resulting agenda, will always be biased – not every story can be covered (Uysal, 2009). The presentation of news items is also biased. After all, emotions are what inspire our communication with the world (Angel & Gibbs, 2006), and though they should not, emotions also affect journalistic communication and the way news is framed, thus influencing public perception (Uysal, 2009).
Still, the media is a vital source of information for the masses, to the point where it modifies political preferences (Ross & Nightingale, 2003). Uysal (2008) claims that “Since we receive a large portion of our information through the media, the way information is presented can have a significant influence on our perceptions of the world”. Consequently, new governments tend to target the media to initiate social change. Not surprisingly, positive political media coverage provokes a positive response towards a political party (Ross & Nightingale, 2003). In Turkey, by limiting journalistic inquiry into its actions, the Justice and Development Party ensures that its image and agendas are not tainted, regardless of whether the representation is truthful. The existence of an informed citizenry becomes nearly impossible.
Viewers believe prominent news stories are more important than other issues that do not gain as much attention. “Matters which are not reported, or which are reported briefly, tend to drop off the public ‘agenda’ and are forgotten by most people,” claims Mackey (2000). However, the same message needs to be received from multiple sources before agenda-setting can be successful (Mackey, 2000). To this end, the media monopoly apparent in Turkey is vital to the Justice and Development Party.
The domination of the Turkish media market by two key players, the Dogan and Sabah groups, further tightens the Justice and Development Party’s hold on journalists, and increases the media’s agenda setting capability by ensuring the same message is communicated to citizens (Christensen, 2007). The Dogan and Sabah groups, supporters of the federal government, control 70 percent of print and broadcast media in Turkey. Journalists laid off by either organisation find re-employment virtually impossible (Uysal, 2008). Also controlling publishing and distribution, these media moguls make the entry of new market competitors close to unfeasible (Uysal, 2009).
In this political environment, completely devoid of scrutiny and accountability, journalism and the media are divided into two opposing feudal factions: those that support the AK Party, and those that do not. It is a deeply partisan media and journalism environment. The media organisations and journalists who support the ruling party are able to access information, while opposing media tend to be left in the dark (Baris, 2006).
Opposing journalists are instead presented as the ‘other’ – an enemy. Media outlets have the power to suggest to their audiences that the ‘other’ threatens security, cannot be reasoned with, and requires elimination, a technique once used by the Nazi German media to influence public opinion towards the ‘evil’ Jewish people (Terzis, 2008). Although not nearly as extreme, the AK Party portrays the ‘enemy’ as a traitor deserving punishment with the help of a supportive media.
Facts versus Opinions
Unlike international print media, Turkish print media provides substantial scope to columnists. A reader’s thought processes can be influenced by a single journalist, and so the space is dominated by columns rather than purely factual news items (Cantek, 2007). In any given newspaper, almost every page includes an opinion piece on a wide range of topics (Uysal, 2009).
The Vatan (Citizen) and Zaman (Time) newspapers belong to opposing media factions. Described as politically neutral, Vatan has become popular for publishing articles on controversial issues in Turkey. Zaman, on the other hand, has earned a reputation for being political and ideological. Media members and citizens who do not support the Justice and Development Party view publications such as Zaman as a threat to Turkey’s secular identity (Cantek, 2007).
In early 2009 an opinion piece titled, “Turkey’s turn from the West or another smear campaign?”, was published in Zaman. It was journalist Mehmet Kalyoncu’s response to a Washington Post article, “Turkey’s Turn from the West”, by Soner Cagaptay, the latter of whom claimed that Turkey’s foreign policies were no longer pro-western. The articles were published soon after Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Israel’s President Shimon Peres of “killing people” (Kalyoncu, 2009).
Kalyoncu attempts to devalue Cagaptay’s article by referring to his post at the head of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which is known for its alleged pro-Israel tendencies. In the article he writes, “Cagaptay’s op-ed piece in the Washington Post seems like a hastily written diatribe against the AK Party government produced in retaliation for Israel President Peres’ humiliation at the Davos panel” (2009). Noticeably he does not criticise AK Party actions.
Ruhat Mengi, a columnist at Vatan, takes a different stance towards the AK Party in an opinion piece titled, “Free Media and Regime Media”. Mengi’s first words are: “As you all know a large majority of the Turkish media is now in the hands of names that are ‘very close’ to the party in power. There’s no need for research to be aware of this, all you have to do is open the pages of the newspapers and look at the stories and opinions being printed” (Mengi, 2008).
In making this statement Mengi has no qualms about expressing her distaste for the AK Party’s attitude towards freedom of expression, however, she does not attack the party but rather the journalists who allow the Government’s ‘courting’ process. She criticises them for “weakening the fourth estate” and undermining the journalism profession by not publishing “truthful and unbiased articles” (Mengi, 2008).
Furthermore, according to Mengi, the journalists she refers to as “AK Party media” are not only presenting journalists who don’t blatantly follow the AK Party’s line as the “other”, they are also handing out labels such as “opposition supporter” (Mengi, 2008). The use of labels in politics is not uncommon. In Turkey, Erdogan has labelled the ‘other’ as “fascists” and “un-Turkish” (Mengi, 2008). Angel and Gibbs (2006) compare the labels used in politics to those used by commercial brands. Political leaders must find someone to blame, add Angel and Gibbs (2006), explaining: “[N]egative displays are taken more seriously than positive displays” (2006). By assigning blame “AK Party media” creates an “enemy” only Prime Minister Erdogan can protect the state against, presenting him as a constantly vigilant leader.
For a brief moment in early 2008, the ‘other’ thought its message would be heard. At the time, Lighthouse, a Turkish charity operating in Germany and allegedly linked to the Justice and Development Party, was found to be misusing funds. While the heads of the company were prosecuted, the proceedings found that other guilty parties were residing in Turkey where the court had no jurisdiction. Despite the facts, no investigation was opened in Turkey. When questioned by the media, Justice Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin said, “What a charity does in another country is none of our concern.” Erdogan had no comment, despite his previous election promise to end corruption (Mengi, 2008).
During the Lighthouse scandal, the ‘other’ thought it could describe Erdogan using terms such as “untrustworthy” and even “criminal”. But these labelling representations were short-lived, as was the negative media coverage the Justice and Development Party received. Given the legal barriers that now prevent media investigations into government decisions, this was the only probable outcome. Indeed, until the Dogan and Sabah groups stop supporting the AK Party, the use of such descriptors will not touch Erdogan’s image.
The media monopoly does not stop with the private broadcasters. The state-owned TRT (Turkish Radio and Television) channels are also a “forum for parliamentary protocol” (Bek, 2004). News broadcasts primarily report on AK Party activities. The formulaic broadcasts only cover the ‘who’ and ‘where’ without discussion or criticism. “Protecting the state takes precedence over the citizen’s right to information,” argues Bek (2004).
And yet despite this distrust-promoting media landscape, quality journalism is still being conducted in Turkey, claims Bayraktaroglu. Programs such as Siyaset Meydani (translated as Debate Arena) choose a popular topic to discuss each week. Experts from relevant areas are invited to participate and express their views. The topics are not always political, but they are always thoroughly researched. Viewers can also contribute by calling in or sending an email (Bayraktaroglu, 2002).
Siyaset Meydani was created in the 1990s when Turkish media was described as “competitive and vibrant” (Christensen, 2007). Nuri Colakoglu, head of Broadcast and Print Media at the Dogan Media Group, disagrees with such assessments, claiming Turkey’s media has become a role model for the Middle East. “Today the media are careful watchers of the ruling power,” he argues. Despite the AK Party’s Islamic connections, Colakoglu maintains that the Federal Government embraces a pro-western attitude with regard to freedom of expression (Unver, 2004).
One example of this westernised attitude is the system of checks and balances set up when the Radio Television Supreme Council (RTUK) was created. Established in 1993, RTUK is responsible for regulating private broadcasting and controlling program quality in accordance with the constitution (Bayraktaroglu, 2002). Penalties in the form of programme and channel suspensions can be handed out for breaches. However, most penalties target programmes “which are against the state”, raising questions about RTUK’s supposed impartiality (Bek, 2004). In recent years, RTUK’s council members have also received criticism because of their political affiliations (Baris, 2006).
The law governing RTUK’s channel suspension policy was softened in 2002 due to the international and domestic criticism it attracted. Presently RTUK is more likely to hand out programme suspensions. But while the law has been softened, the number of warnings and program suspensions has increased during the Justice and Development Party’s time in government. Between 2002 and 2005 there was an increase from 118 warnings to 975 (Baris, 2006).
Journalism and Media under Attack: The Casualties
If the Turkish media continues advancing as it has since the advent of the Justice and Development Party, it risks remaining stifled, resulting in the country becoming a “low intensity democracy” far from the free democracy Ataturk idealised when he said: "We are going to advance our country to the level of the most civilized and prosperous countries." (Ataturk, 2006)
It took the death of Duygu Asena for journalists to speak out against the government. The journalist and women’s right activist died from cancer in 2006. Her death reminded journalists of the lifetime battle she fought against media restrictions (Uysal, 2009). Journalists first criticised the Directorate of Religious Affairs for not being pro-active on women’s rights. The media then turned to the Justice and Development Party accusing them of ignoring honour killings and associating women’s rights with the entitlement to wear a headscarf (a practice not allowed in schools and other government buildings since the establishment of the Turkish Republic).
The government was also accused of being unconcerned with other social issues women face, such as high levels of unemployment (Uysal, 2009). Turkey is not a dictatorship. When deemed necessary the media can produce high-quality debates. Nonetheless, government criticism eventually died down. It was not spurred again till the death of Hrant Dink in 2007. A national extremist shot Dink in front of the Istanbul offices of Agos, the Turkish-Armenian newspaper he edited. Dink had been accused of “insulting the Turkish identity” the previous year and was handed a six-month suspended sentence, which at the time left many questioning the AK Party’s claimed commitment to freedom of expression (Christensen, 2007).
It was assumed Dink’s death would ignite the period of reflection his sentence never triggered. It did but only briefly. Journalistic practice was considered, and the weakness of journalists against the state was discussed, but two years later, nothing has really changed. Journalists are still being bound and gagged by constitutional articles.
Turkish media has been the topic of heated debate since Turkey’s bid to become a member of the European Union. As a country “caught in an intellectual and theoretical ‘no-man’s land’”, (Christensen, 2007) it is essential that the laws governing Turkey’s media practices are reviewed. If the Justice and Development Party desire to posses the pro-western attitude it already claims to embrace, then its first act should be re-reviewing the penal code and including provision for public interest and the protection of journalists.
Bibliography
Acar, A., & Bolukbasi, E. (2007). Media Accident Reports. Cinius Yayinlar.
Acar, A., & Bolukbasi, E. (2009). Media Accident Reports 2. Cinius Yayinlar.
Ahmad, F. (2008). Bir Kimlik Pesinde Turkiye (3rd ed.). Istanbul Bilgi Universitesi Yayinlar.
Aktif Haber. (2009, March 13). Iste Balbay’a Destek Verenler. Aktif Haber. Retrieved 5, April, 2009, from http://www.aktifhaber.com/news_detail.php?id=212280
Alpay, S. (2008a, September 8). Congratulations President Gul. Today’s Zaman. Retrieved 1, May, 2009, from http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/columnists-152415-congratulations-president-gul.html
Alpay, S. (2008b, September 15). How to Improve the Turkish Media. Today’s Zaman. Retrieved 1, May, 2009, from http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/columnists-153103-how-to-improve-the-turkish-media.html
Alpay, S. (2009a, March 9). Why the Row between the PM and the Media Tycoon?. Today’s Zaman. Retrieved 1, May, 2009, from http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/columnists-169024-why-the-row-between-the-pm-and-the-media-tycoon.html
Alpay, S. (2009b, March 23). Justice and Development Party: Sins and Good Deeds. Today’s Zaman. Retrieved 1, May, 2009, from http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/columnists-170355-justice-and-development-party-sins-and-good-deeds.html
Angel, M., & Gibbs, A. (2006). Media, Affect and the Face: Biomediation and the Political Scene. Southern Review, Special Issue: Affective Communication/Communicating Affect, 38(2), 24 – 39.
Ataturk, M. K. (2006). Nutuk (2nd ed.). Kar Yayinlari.
Baris, R. (2006). Media Landscape Turkey. European Journalism Centre. Retrieved 20, October, 2008, from http://www.ejc.net/media_landscape/article/turkey/
Baydar, Y. (2009, March 18). ‘Journalist’: The Curious Case of Mustafa Balbay. Today’s Zaman. Retrieved 9, April, 2009, from http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/columnists-169908-journalist-the-curious-case-of-mustafa-balbay.html
Baydar, Y. (2008, September 19). Corruption and the media. Today’s Zaman. Retrieved 15, April, 2009, http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/columnists-153581-corruption-and-the-media.html
Bayraktaroglu, A. (2002). The Media: Change and Impact. In B. Beeley (Ed.), Turkish Transformations, New Century New Challenges (pp. 123-140). Hemingford Grey, Eothen.
BBC News. (2006, January 23). Court Drops Turkish Writer’s Case. BBC News. Retrieved 23, February, 2006, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/46
37886.stm
Bek, M. (2004). Tabloidization of News Media: An Analysis of Television News in Turkey. European Journal of Communication, 19(3), 371 – 386.
Bilefsky, D. (2006, Novermber 5). Ankara May Amend Law on Free Speech – Europe – International Herald Tribune. The New York Times. Retrieved 7, November,2006,from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/world/europe/05iht-turkey.3402364.html
Byford, G. (2009, May 20). Trial of the ‘Deep State’. IV. Kuvet Medya. Retrieved 19, June, 2009, from http://www.dorduncukuvvetmedya.com/media-studies/trial-of-the-deep-state
Calik Holding. (2008). Calik Holding acquires Sabah-ATV. Calik Holding. Retrieved 16, June, 2009, from http://www.calik.com/page.aspx?id=208
Calik Holding. (2009). Berat Albayrak. Calik Holding. Retrieved 16, June, 2009, from http://www.calik.com/page.aspx?id=189
Calik Holding. (2009). Ahmet Calik. Calik Holding. Retrieved 16, June, 2009, from http://www.calik.com/page.aspx?id=191
Cantek, F. (2007). Reader’s Newspaper/The Newspaper’s Reader: On the Comment Page of Hurriyet Newspaper. Toplum ve Bilim, 109, 66-96.
Castillo, A. (2006). The Media in the Chilean Transition to Democracy: Context Process and Evaluation (1990-2000). PHD Thesis. University of Western Sydney. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from University of Western Sydney Digital Theses.
Christensen, C. (2007). Breaking the news: concentration of ownership, the fall of unions and government legislation in Turkey. Global Media and Communication, 3 (2), 179 – 199.
Demir, V. (2007). Media and Politics Relationships in Turkey. Beta Basin Yayin Dagitim.
Dogan Holding. (2009). Dogan Holding Corporate Profile 2007-2008. Dogan Holding.
Dundar, C., & Kazdagli, C. (2008). Ergenekon – The State inside the State (15th ed.). Imge Kitabevi.
Economist, The. (2002). A Turkish Rupert Murdoch. The Economist, 362(8260), 65.
Erdal, B. (2008, April 10). Amendment to Article 301 found unsatisfactory. Today’s Zaman. Retrieved 28, February, 2009, from http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=138628
European Journalism Centre. (2008). Turkish Parliament Passes Reform of Controversial Law. European Journalism Centre. Retrieved 21, October, 2008, from http://www.ejc.net/media_news/turkish_parliament_passes_reform_of_ controversial_law/
European Stability Initiative. (2009). Issues: The “deep state” and Eregenekon. European Stability Initiative. Retrieved 14, March, 2009, from http://www.esiweb.org/index.php?lang=en&id=311&film_ID=10&slide_ID=29
Finkel, A. (1999, February 21). Turkey’s Next Move: Thoughts of Change for the Kurds, and Me. The Washington Post, p. B1.
Finkel, A. (2000). Who guards the Turkish Press? A Perspective on Press Corruption in Turkey. Journal of International Affairs, 54(1), 147-166.
Finkel, A. (2005). Fighting the Enemy Within. IPI Global Journalist 3, 24-25.
Finkel, A. (2006). Why Turkish Newspapers Sometimes Lie. In G. Maclean (Ed.), Writing Turkey: Explorations in Turkish History, Politics, and Cultural Identity. London: Middlesex University Press.
Finkel, A. (2007). Turkey: Torn between God and State. Le Monde Dipolmatique. Retrieved 24, April, 2009, from: http://mondediplo.com/2007/05/02turkey
Forbes. (2009, March 11). The World’s Billionaires - #701 Ahmet Calik. Forbes. Retrieved 19, June, 2009, from http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/10/billio
naires -2009-richest-people_Ahmet-Calik_12EU.html
Fowler, S. (2006, September 15). Turkey, A Touchy Critic, Plans to Put a Novel on Trial. The New York Times. Retrieved 7, November, 2006, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/world/europe/15turkey.html?_r=1
Freedom House. (2004). Freedom of the Press. Rowman & Littleman.
Freedom House. (2006). Country Report 2006 – Turkey. Freedom House. Retrieved 21, October, 2008, from http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page =22&country=7077&year=2006
Freedom House. (2008). Country Report 2008 – Turkey. Freedom House. Retrieved 21, October, 2008, from http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008&country=7508
Freely, M. (2006, August 13). Writers on Trial. The New York Times. Retrieved 7, November, 2006, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/books/review
/13freely.html
Gulen, A., Aydin, V.A. (2009). AKP’nin Feneri Boyle Sondu. Cadde Yayinlari.
Gultasli, S. (2008, May 1). EU welcomes 301 amendment but calls for more. Today’s Zaman. Retrieved 5, March, 2009, from http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=140606
Guner Law Office. (2009). Turkey: Turkish Media Law: The Rise of Television Broadcasting in Turkey. Mondaq. Retrieved 13, July, 2009, from http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=76086
Gropp, L. (2006). In Turkey, a Novel is a Public Statement. Qantara. Retrieved 13, March, 2009, from http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-310/_nr-323/i.html
Haraszti, M. (2005). Review of the Draft Turkish Penal Code: Freedom of Media Concerns. Vienna: Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
IFEX. (2008, August 28). 412 Internet sites and blogs protest censorship. International Freedom of Expression Exchange. Retrieved 24, March, 2009, from http://www.ifex.org/turkey/2008/08/27/412_internet_sites_and_blogs_protest/
Jenkins, G. (2008a, May 15). AKP strengthens its hold on the Turkish media. Eurasia Daily Monitor. Retrieved 23, February, 2009, from http://www.jamestown.org
/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=33641
Jenkins, G. (2008b, April 24). Turkish banks make huge loan to friend of Erdogan. Eurasia Daily Monitor. Retrieved 23, February, 2009, from http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=
1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=33579
Kalyoncu, M. (2009, February 4). Turkey’s turn from the West or yet another smear campaign? Today’s Zaman. Retrieved 20, April, 2009, from http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=165948
Karabat, A. (2008, March 2). EU process victim of and solution to Ergenekon. Today’s Zaman. Retrieved 20, April, 2009, from http://www.sundayszaman.com/sunday/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=3266
Karpat, K. H. (2008). Turk Demokrasi Tarihi (3rd ed.). Imge Kitabevi.
Kenes, B. (2009, September 23). To kill a journalist. Today’s Zaman. Retrieved 24, September, 2009, from http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/columnists-187691-to-kill-a-journalist.html
Kologlu, O. (2006). Press History from the Ottomans to the 21st Century. Pozitif Yayinlari.
Kucuk, A. (2007). Conciliation or imposition? Today’s Zaman. Retrieved 20, April, 2009, from http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&
link=119199
Leicht, J. (2006, February 6). Turkey: Court drops prosecution of writer Orhan Pamuk. World Socialist Web Site. Retrieved 15, February, 2009, from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/turk-f06.shtml
Mackey, S. (2000). Theoretical Perspectives. In J. Johnston & C. Zawawi (Ed.), Public Relations: Theory and Practice (pp. 43-71). Allen & Unwin.
Meadows, M. (2001). A Return to Practice: Reclaiming Journalism as Public Conversation. In S. Tapsall & C. Varley (Ed.), Journalism: Theory in Practice (pp. 40-54). Oxford University Press.
MediaCat. (2008). Turkey Media Ownership Map. MediaCat.
Mengi, R. (2008a, June 13). Bayram Comedy. Vatan. Retrieved 20, April, 2009, from http://www.haberler.com/haberf.asp?haber=1501917
Mengi, R. (2008b, October 2). Free Media and Regime Media. Vatan. Retrieved 20, April, 2009, from http://haber.gazetevatan.com/haberdetay.asp?Newsid=18390&Categoryid=4&wid=4
Milliyet. (2008, September 8). Erdogan’in sozlerine Baykal’dan yalanlama. Milliyet. Retrieved 20, April, 2008, from http://www.milliyet.com.tr/Siyaset/HaberDet ay.aspx?aType=HaberDetay&Kategori=siyaset&KategoriID=&ArticleID=
988145&Date=08.09.2008&b=Erdoganin%20sozlerine%20Baykaldan%20yalanlama
Nethaber. (2008, September 9). Baykal: ‘Deniz Feneri yolsuzlugu ile AKP siyasetine finance etmisler…AKP siyasetine karanlik kaynaklardan biri ortaya cikmistir’. Nethaber. Retrieved 20, April, 2009, from http://www.nethaber.com/Politika
/73957/Baykal-Deniz-Feneri-yolsuzlugu-ile-AKP-siyasetini
Ogun, N. (2007). Turkish Trade Delights. Dynamic Export, November, p. 12-13.
Ozdabak, M. (2009, March 13). We are all Balbay. Hurriyet. Retrieved 15, March, 2009, from http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/11199493.asp
Ozgen, M. (2004a, May 14). Developments in the Turkish Media after 1980 and Tabloidisation. Paper presented at the Communication in the Millennium Symposium, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ozgen, M. (2004b). Press Development and Problems in Turkey (2nd ed.). Istanbul Universitesi Iletisim Fakultesi Yayinlar.
Radikal. (2009, March 24). Balbay: Notlar montajli ve islenmis. Radikal. Retrieved 25, March, 2009, from http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=
RadikalDetay&ArticleID=927745&Date=24.03.2009&CategoryID=77
Reporters Without Borders. (2008, August 5). Local media continue to be hounded under laws that need to be changed. Reporters without Borders. Retrieved 2, June, 2009, from http://www.rog.at /local-media-continue-to-be-hounded-under-laws-that-need-to-be-changed.html
Reporters Without Borders. (2009, May 5). YouTube completes a year of being blocked in Turkey. Reporters without Borders. Retrieved 2, June, 2009, from http://arabia.reporters-sans-frontieres.org/article.php3?id_article=31211
Reuters. (2009, September 8). Turkey government hits media group Dogan with tax fine. Reuters. Retrieved 12, September, 2009, from http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL815352620090908?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
Ross, K., & Nightingale, V. (2003). The Audience as Citizen: Media, Politics and Democracy. Media and Audiences: New Perspectives. Open University Press.
RTUK. (1994). Law on the Establishment of Radio and Television Enterprises and Their Broadcasts Law No. 3984 of 20 April 1994. RTUK. Retrieved 13, March, 2009, from http://www.rtuk.org.tr/sayfalar/IcerikGoster.aspx?icerik_id = b41eac9a-bc39-4213-91f3-0d39931c1f1d
Sagir, C. (2009, February 8). Ergenekon investigation to strengthen Turkish Democracy. Sunday’s Zaman. Retrieved 13, March, 2009, from http://www.sundayszaman.com/sunday/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=166321
Sansal, B. (2009). Political Parties in Turkey. All About Turkey. Retrieved 13, March, 2009, from http://www.allaboutturkey.com/parti.htm
Satana, N. (2008). Transformation of the Turkish Military and the Path to Democracy. Armed Forces and Society, 34 (3). 357 – 388.
Schmitter, P., & Karl, T. L. (1991). What Democracy Is…and Is Not. Journal of Democracy, 2(3). 75 – 88.
Talu, U. (2005). The Media and Democracy used to be like Siblings. Sivil Toplum, 3(9). 94.
Terzis, G. (2008). Journalism education crossing boundaries: De-mainstreaming binary oppositions in reporting the ‘other’. Journalism, 9(2), 141 – 162. Retrieved 10, March, 2009, from http://jou.sagepub.com/cgi/content
/abstract/9/2/141 [Accessed].
Tunc, A. (2002). Pushing the limits of tolerance. Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies, 64. 47 – 62.
Today’s Zaman. (2008, July 28). Ergenekon civil wing leader is Ilhan Selcuk. Today’s Zaman. Retrieved 14, April, 2009, from http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=148657
Topuz, H. (2003). Turkish Press History (2nd ed.). Remzi Kitabevi.
Tumgazeteler. (2008). CHP Lideri Baykal: Deniz Feneri, siyasetle yakindan iliskili. Tumgazeteler. Retrieved 16, June, 2009, from http://www.tumgazeteler.com
/?a=4119167
Tumgazeteler. (2009). Erdogan 3. kez kayinpeder oldu. Tumgazeteler. Retrieved 16, June, 2009 from http://www.tumgazeteler.com/?a=619210
Turkey Daily News. (2001, September 11). EU official issues warning on record tax levy against Dogan Media Group. Turkey Daily News. Retrieved 12, September, 2009, from http://www.turkeydailynews.com/news/118/ARTIC
E/1749/2009-09-11.html
Turkey Elections. (2009). Results of 2009 Local Elections. Turkey Elections. Retrieved 2, August, 2009, from http://www.turkiyesecimleri.com/2009-yerel-secim-sonuclari.php
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved 8, June, 2009, from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Unver, B. (2004). Colakoglu Redefines the Turkish Media’s Role and Future. Turkish Area Studies Review, 4. 47 – 48.
Uysal, A. (2008). Media and Religious Reforms in Turkey. Global Media Journal Mediterranean Edition, 3(1) Spring 2008. 50 – 59.
Uysal, A. (2009). The Language of Inclusions and Exclusions: Media and Social Movements in Turkey. Global Media Journal (American Edition), 8(14) Spring 2009. Retrieved 10, April, 2009, from http://lass.calumet.purdue.edu
/cca/gmj/sp09/gmj-sp09-uysal.htm
Yavuz, E. (2007, December 29). Government finished amendment to Article 301. Today’s Zaman. Retrieved 11, April, 2009, from http://www.todayszaman
.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=130365
About the Author
Nukte Ogun has just completed her Honours degree at the University of Western Sydney majoring in journalism. In 2007 she undertook the position of staff writer at Dynamic Business magazine. She has also been a regular contributor to SBS Turkish Radio and Yeni Vatan, Turkish Newspaper. She is currently the Communications Officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Irrigation Futures and freelances for Sydney City Hub and Bondi View.
Contact Details
E-mail: nukte.ogun@optusnet.com.au
