Shameless manipulations by ‘Frightened Turkish journalists’

I got the same feeling when I read “Turkish journalists are very frightened – but we must fight this intimidation,” penned by Ece Temelkuran for the Guardian.

My article will mainly be about Temelkuran’s article, but before moving into that, I would like to briefly remind you about this form of “festival film journalism” and its heydays.

“Turkish journalists” developed a special interest in this form of journalism in the period following the assassination of Uğur Mumcu and before the February 28, 1997 coup. At that time, these journalists would be invited abroad, where they would inform their Western colleagues and politicians of “the secular intellectuals who were killed by Islamist terrorists” and try to convince them that Turkey was quickly “becoming like Iran.” They would talk about Aczmendis, Müslüm Gündüz and Fadime Şahin as proof of their theses.

While they were obsessed with this campaign, the infamous Susurluk accident occurred in 1997. Facts gleaned thanks to this accident created the public perception that the secular intellectuals had been killed by shady networks within the state that sought to give the impression that Turkey was facing a Shariah threat, thereby manipulating the general public.

One of the basic rules of festival film journalism was that maximum effort had to be made in order to inform Westerners that these facts were now crystal clear. However, the template of “Islamists killing secular intellectuals” was in perfect harmony with the West’s established patterns of thinking; thus the Western perception could be maintained without much effort. Indeed, when the military overthrew the democratically elected government on February 28, the secular politicians, journalists and ordinary people of the West just said, “bon pour la Turquie.”

As the West’s perceptions about Turkey were being successfully created in this manner, the 9/11 attack came. These attacks managed to promote the template “Muslim terrorists who seek to kill Christians” to “Muslims who seek to kill Christians.”

This new perception and the Justice and Development Party’s (AK Party) election to office in Turkey would create a fresh opportunity for festival film journalism: “Turkey is a dark place where Christian minorities (and missionaries) are destroyed in the political/psychological environment the AK Party created.”

Who was behind the anti-missionary campaign?

It was obvious that the anti-missionary campaign that started with the establishment of the AK Party was not provoked by Muslims, but by a new form of nationalism -- neo-nationalism -- in which Islam and democracy had no importance. However, it was hard to make Westerners believe that those behind this campaign were secular neo-nationalists whose lifestyles were like those of Westerners and it was, in contrast, easy to make them believe that this campaign was supported by pious Muslims.

This was a perfect opportunity for festival film journalism; if they could organize themselves better, this campaign might be made more effective than the “Turkey is becoming like Iran” campaign.

Like the first one, this campaign, too, was very successful. I know this from a personal experience at the European Parliament.

Last September, I went to the European Parliament at the invitation of a social democrat and liberal member of parliament. During my meetings, I tried to convince people that they should have a nuanced perspective about Turkey that should not rely on established habits of thinking. To this end, I explained to them the true nature of the anti-missionary campaign between 2003 and 2007 in Turkey. And although I was expecting them to realize the truth about this matter and confess: “You’re right; we’re wrong,” I was surprised to see that they still retained their established patterns of thinking.

Temelkuran’s ‘festival film’

As I read “Turkish journalists are very frightened – but we must fight this intimidation,” which Ece Temelkuran penned for the Guardian, I got the feeling that we were facing the same form of journalism that we saw in the campaigns, “Turkey is becoming like Iran” or “Muslims are killing Christians in Turkey.”

I first heard about Temelkuran’s article thanks to “Ece Temelkuran and a note about Hrant Dink,” when it was mentioned by Serdar Kaya at the end of this article, dated Jan. 29 in Taraf newspaper. Kaya wrote:

“Anyone who reads the article without a close understanding of the realities of Turkey is very likely to think that Dink was one of the journalists who were intimidated by the AK Party [and was possibly even killed by the AK Party]. I don’t know why Temelkuran chose to pen such an article. But it is disgusting to see that the name and photo of Hrant Dink are abused in such a way.”

Indeed, Temelkuran’s article was mainly about the connection of Dink’s murder to the Islamist government.

A liberal intellectual, from one of the Christian minorities in the country, was killed, from behind, in the dark setting creating by the Islamist government: Is there any other conspiracy that would be more acceptable to Western minds?

Just look at how convincing the organization of the article is:

There is a photo showing Dink’s dead body, covered with papers, lying in the street.

Beneath the photo is written: “Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was gunned down outside his office in Istanbul.”

Let us have a close look at this composition.

Who are Turkish journalists afraid of? Of course, they are afraid of the “Islamist government,” the null subject of the title of this article. Now, combine this information with the photo and its caption.

What does this combination say to British readers who are left behind when the very small number of them who follow Turkey very closely are excluded? Of course, it says the following: In Turkey, journalists are very afraid of the existing government because among the crimes of this government are the murders of journalists.

No other interpretation comes out of this combination. What I really wonder is: Who thought of this cunningness?

Serdar Kaya says, “I don’t know why you preferred to edit Temelkuran’s article in this way.”

Sure, it is highly probable that Temelkuran submitted her article to the newspaper and didn’t get involved in the rest, which would mean this composition is down to the preferences of the editors of the newspaper. A third possibility is that this editing may be a cooperative effort. The explanation from Ece Temelkuran that she “and the editorial department of the Guardian have previously know each other” makes this option more probable.

However, in a way we can see that the Guardian -- or should I write “even the Guardian” -- was predisposed to supposing that “Dink was one of the journalists that were oppressed by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), and even that he was murdered by AK Party.”

This would indicate that “Turkish journalists” had already attained enormous achievements in this, the third “festival film” that it shot for the West.

* This article was first published on Feb. 6, 2012 in the Taraf daily