It seems that generals have even abandoned their usual meetings designed to brief the press about various issues, but this time, they opt to implement their psychological warfare tactics through certain media organizations. At a time when the majority of Turkish people have stepped up their efforts to get rid of the military guardianship system that has been haunting our democracy in collaboration with certain media organizations, nongovernmental organizations and political parties, this method is considerably outdated, but it is still interesting.
However, our respected generals should not forget the fact that time has changed and it very unlikely for this method to be productive. This is because Turkey is not the old country they knew and the media is no longer the old media they were accustomed to manipulating -- though some papers and TV stations still stick to their old habits. Thank God, there is a different media that does not readily give in to attempts at propaganda by generals and does not view their words as sacred. Now, there is neither room for antidemocratic moves by generals nor a society that would hail such moves. Still, they do not refrain from re-marketing these stale and nauseating game tactics with help from their old friends who have long been writing for the country's old media.
A report titled "Almanac Turkey 2006–2008: Security Sector and Democratic Oversight," released by the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) on Wednesday, contains a number of articles on various aspect of civilian-military relations, written by scholars who are specialized in their respective fields, but I think one article stands out in serving as a reference in this area. In the report, prepared under the coordination of Ali Bayramoğlu and Ahmet İnsel, an article by Alper Görmüş titled "Media: hawkish against the police, dovish against the army" is an important reference in understanding why the media loves military coups.
As Görmüş rightfully points out, the media in democratic countries normally sees itself as part of society, and in the event of any confrontation between society and the state, it assumes a critical stance against the army and the police, which it regards as part of the state. A "normal" media acts as a medium for conveying social demands to higher powers --various state organs. On the other hand, the Turkish media is closer to the state than to society, and this position reverses everything.
"In its current state, the Turkish media, rather than conveying social demands to the state, sees itself as responsible for imposing the state's perceptions or observations about society on society," writes Görmüş, who points out that the media mostly acts as the state's most important aide in helping the state make society comply with the predetermined system and order. Görmüş says, "This relation [between the media and the state] is best crystallized during a military coup."
Frequently referring to İrfan Neziroğlu's book "Military Coups and the Media in Turkey: 1950-1980," which he wrote based on his doctoral thesis on the same topic, which comprises a detailed survey of four papers -- Hürriyet, Milliyet, Cumhuriyet and Tercüman -- Görmüş clearly shows that the Turkish press tends to forget about all principles of journalism in these times of "duty" and present itself as the direct propaganda tool of the state.
The impression one gets from his article is that he find this ill behavior both strange and "normal." Noting that the origins of the Turkish media were problematic, Görmüş says: "In the first place, the press was born as the child of the state, and it grew under its close protection. Starting from the establishment of the republic and during the single-party regime, the press benefited from material and spiritual support from the state, and in return, it functioned mainly as the propaganda tool of the state, the party [the Republican People's Party (CHP)] and the army. The leading journalists were always treated as if they were ‘bureaucrats,' which gave satisfaction to the journalists in question. Indeed, this was regarded as a position more valuable than, say, those of major businessmen. This father and son relation of 30 years has obviously left its traces in the genes of journalism that can be visible even today."
Görmüş further underlines that like the people and institutions that support military guardianship in Turkey, the Turkish media takes pains in making a pronounced distinction between "the state" and "the government," adding that the media regard the police as an institution controlled by the democratically elected government and adopts a different position toward the army. I cannot agree more with Görmüş when he says, "The press uses an utterly critical language against the police that is under the control of the government, but it is ready to dispense with all its critical ability with respect to the army."
"In Turkey, the media side with the army in the face of all governments, but it is closer to the army with respect to certain governments [possibly referring to the Menderes, Özal, Erbakan and Erdoğan governments]," he says, in a manner I again fully agree with. We should not be surprised to see people viewing Turkey from the outside, trying to understand the issues in Turkey in the fog created by the media, but failing in the end. This is because the old media quarter of Turkey, particularly the Doğan Media Group, is determined to perform its old job of glorifying the army and hailing military coups and clearly shows its militarist and pro-guardianship attitude particularly in its coverage of the Ergenekon investigation.
