Apparently, a Turkish scholar at the same institution was approached by some Turkish people and asked to conduct research to prove that “while Zaman or its ideational stance is radical and hard-line in Turkey, it is projected by Today’s Zaman to outside readers as if moderate and liberal.” To the American’s shock, the Turkish scholar accepted the request, “beyond any academic or ethical tradition,” and made arrangements with his staff to come to the “required” conclusion. It is a fact that no social research can be entirely neutral. This is not the place to discuss all the issues related to bias, metacommunication, insider and outsider perspectives and phenomenology. However, an outside researcher can easily observe “natural” action and derive findings from the action itself, rather than merely “googling certain discursive elements and phrases in the words of columnists of the two dailies.” However, it is obvious from the request to tailor the research results that there would be no reliability, objective reality or academic validity to the findings.
Apart from questions about the methodological approach, there are many other points to be raised about this tailored research. Here are some points I shared with my American friend:
From its Web site, one can see that Today’s Zaman “enjoys the support of the Zaman media conglomerate.” However, the Today’s Zaman team and editorial board are completely different and independent of Zaman’s. Most Today’s Zaman columnists do not write for Zaman, and vice versa. The target audiences of the two dailies are also very different. Today’s Zaman provides credible news, objective analysis and trustworthy information for non-Turkish (speaking) people who are interested in Turkey’s social, economic, cultural and political developments. So the sources, focus, teams, columnists and readers are different.
How do we decide when a newspaper is radical and hard-line or moderate and liberal? I wonder how simply googling certain words and phrases in the two dailies -- the research “method” used -- could yield the requested conclusion? Won’t researchers also need to consider all the special international editions of Zaman for other foreign countries which are printed in local alphabets and languages? Since Zaman is the first Turkish daily newspaper to have made itself available online since 1995, will the research cover such a long period and everything published?
Those who have taken on this project have already published op-eds or commentaries and given interviews to Today’s Zaman on important issues. Even assuming that the scholar concerned now regrets publishing in Today’s Zaman, how will the research account for the great number of Turkish and non-Turkish presidents, prime ministers, ministers, diplomats and authorities from various governments, civic organizations and academia, unprecedented for the Turkish media, who have written for and been published in Today’s Zaman ? Are all these people mistaken, too? Would they really wish to take risks with a radical daily? And what about the national and international awards won for serious, fair and balanced reporting and for contributions to intercultural understanding, especially through Zaman’s foreign editions?
Both newspapers report on educational and cultural activities as well as news and various people’s perspectives. They have set a good example for other media organs and provided alternative perspectives. Zaman and Today’s Zaman respect and encourage peaceful public discourse produced in everyday networks by citizens. They are visible to the decision-making apparatuses that govern major media networks and define the political agenda. In this way they ensure that the controversial issues and debates dividing society are not muffled or veiled.
Before the arrival of Zaman and Today’s Zaman, those with privileged control over the production and diffusion of information were able to strictly define what was central and what was marginal to the political scene. So, this request for "tailored" research is merely a replay of the old ways. It clearly shows up what Zaman and Today’s Zaman have emerged to challenge -- how those with privileged control over the media and academic institutions always attempted to impose patterns of thought and communication on the public. Smear campaigns against prominent individuals and organizations are just another method the old elite use to distort public opinion. In this way, research and journalism give way to ideological blindness.
Zaman newspapers have proven that they are not mere consumers of information, or receivers of prefabricated news from official sources. They have created a space for neutral parties to speak. As such, they are part of the establishment and consolidation of a functioning democracy in Turkey.
This democratizing influence which Zaman and Today’s Zaman wield is surely what those who used to have complete control in the field of information find “radical.” Zaman and Today’s Zaman, by joining in the discussion in the media and in the production and dissemination of information, spoil the one-sided game. They have gained the trust of the masses and become positively influential in the construction of information and peaceful public space.
In sharp contrast, institutional actors who claim to play by “the rules of the game” while simultaneously undermining them -- as in this demand for prefabricated research findings -- are profoundly unethical and anti-democratic.
