Turkey’s cross-border military operation, Operation Peace Spring, was launched on October 9, 2019. The Turkish Armed Forces secured some critical targets including Rasulayn and Tal-Abyad. After the operation started, numerous fake news stories and manipulative content were published targeting Operation Peace Spring and the endeavor was turned into a propaganda war. With the YPG forces about to quickly lose their power and domination in Northern Syria militarily, they have turned to the long-standing support of Western nations as a way out. And for this, they are relying on their well-oiled propaganda machine.

Which tools are being used by the YPG in the propaganda war? First of all, the YPG’s main goal is getting the support of Western countries and encouraging them to use their foreign policy tools. And indeed, they appear to be successful in gaining the public support of most Western countries. These countries now threaten Turkey with embargoes and military measures to end the military operation. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, and France have already suspended arm sales to Turkey. European countries are trying to force Turkey to terminate its operation in the region.

But why are European countries acting so harshly towards the operation? One of the answers lies in the imagined idea of Rojava. For a long time, Rojava, the YPG-led autonomous region of Northern Syria, has been imagined in Western media as a democratic and pluralistic society flourishing in the heart of a troubled Middle East. However, the reality on the ground was quite different, with the YPG carrying out a campaign of violence, intimidation and displacement in order to secure territorial gains. 

After the capture of Northeast Syria by the YPG forces in 2012, the PKK’s long-lasting democratic autonomy project was implemented in Rojava. At this point, it is crucial to understand what the PKK’s democratic autonomy project is. Since 2007, both the PKK and ethno-nationalist separatist Kurdish political parties have underlined that the solution to the problems facing Kurds requires the creation of an autonomous region enabling Kurds to govern themselves, without the intervention of any other actor. This project began to be implemented with the establishment of Rojava with this region becoming a laboratory for this project. But the terrible abuses carried out in the name of establishing Rojava speaks for itself. 

Instead, most Western media channels depicted life in Rojava as a place where women and other vulnerable groups directly participated in political processes, and where decisions are taken by consensus. Indeed, most of this coverage paid specific attention to the secular policies of Rojava and compared it to the practices of the Daesh.  For instance, the New York Times Magazine defined Rojava as a “Dream of Secular Utopia in ISIS’ Backyard” and underlined how secular education policies were being implemented in the region.

Because of this reason, Western media channels have also represented the YPG as freedom fighters who ended the brutality of Daesh in the region. The operation by Turkey was therefore perceived as the fall of the Rojava dream. This was reflected in the remarkable headlines and stories by some Western newspapers and journals such as “Rojava Betrayed. An End to our Dream of Revolution?” and “Turkish Attack on Syria Endangers a Remarkable Democratic Experiment by the Kurds”. Therefore, the long-lasting glorification of Rojava in the Western media strengthened the hand of the YPG in the propaganda war.

Secondly, the cooperation between the United States and the YPG was instrumentalized to urge the Trump administration not to withdraw its support to the YPG. Since the Obama administration, the US had been aiding arms to the YPG forces, this aid became formalized during the Trump administration in order to speed up military operations in Raqqa and ensure victory over Daesh. Thus, the US media are now accusing the Trump administration of betraying “the Kurds”, who are considered to be “the US allies who ended the Daesh dominance in Northern Syria”. Since the Trump administration is under pressure, President Trump has been trying to satisfy public opinion and decrease the domestic fall out by threatening Turkey with new sanctions. Nevertheless, almost all leading Western newspapers and journals are not convinced about the rationale behind Turkey’s operation in the region and this has empowered the hand of the YPG in its propaganda.

The first days of the operation and the success of the Turkish Armed Forces on the ground show that success in a propaganda war has not changed the real situation for the YPG. Because of this, the YPG has been trying to find a new ally to push back against the Turkish army. In order to seek a way out the YPG appears to have shaken hands with the Assad regime and Russia. When for so long the Assad regime has been blacklisted for its brutal role in the Syrian civil war, including the use chemical weapons on civilians, how such an alliance will impact the YPG’s image into the future remains to be seen.

When discussing the media’s strong links to democracy in the literature of democracy, it is problematic that large media organizations that have a global network make a choice between two images that represent similar concepts. Although their time, space, causes and social dynamics are different, the July 15 coup attempt in Turkey and the incidents in China’s Tiananmen Square, which occurred in 1989, have a common point. On both occasions, civilians united to resist tanks. The image of a civilian standing before the tanks at Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989 is used as one of the symbols of the pro-democracy stance in Western media, as the image is definitely a strong symbol for that.

On the other hand, many similar images were captured on the night of the July 15 coup attempt in 2016. Many photos and other kinds of images that showed great instances of heroism were released to the public. However, over the course of the three years since the coup attempt, the global media has not approached these images with similar enthusiasm. I will elaborate on this factor in terms of media-democracy relations, but firstly, I would like to briefly mention the coup attempt in Turkey.

While global media outlets served justice to the civilian who stood against tanks in China’s Tiananmen Square in 1989, it refused to pay attention to the acts of heroism displayed by the Turkish people on the night of the July 15 coup attempt. 

MSNBC did not apologize for its fake news

Three years has passed since the military coup attempt orchestrated by the Fetullah Terror Organization (FETO). The Turkish nation has the justified proud of repelling this attempt under the leadership of President Erdogan. The night of July 15 witnessed an epic, in which civilians resisted heavy weapons with their bare hands – a phenomenon that is not very common in the history of modern nation states. Organized by FETO militants infiltrated in the Turkish military, the coup attempt aimed to overthrow Turkey’s democratically elected president and the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government, which had won the general election by receiving 49 percent of the vote share only 7 months before the coup attempt.

On the night of July 15, the political will, patriotic military officers, police officers and media, acted together in order to repel the coup. They all became heroes of the night. Democracy won that night, whereas the pro-coup mindset suffered a huge blow. The other two defeated groups of that night include the global political actors who kept their silence and hesitated to support democracy against the coup attempt for a long time, and media organs with global networks who did not take a stance against the coup attempt. The Turkish media united and stood up against the atrocity and played a key role in the fight for democracy.

A number of global media outlets, which are supposed to display a similar approach against the coup attempt according to media theory, reported fake news through the U.S.-based MSNBC. While reporting the news, the correspondent said that Erdogan’s plan that was supposed to land in Istanbul was banned and that he was trying to seek refuge in Germany.

Since it is obvious that such a thing never occurred, we would like to remind MSNBC that the Turkish public is still expecting an apology from them. According to professional principles of journalism, they are required to apologize and issue a correction notice by acknowledging that the news was false. From the U.S. to the UK, Germany and France, the Western media tried to legitimize the coup attempt with news reports asserting that the coup was organized against an “authoritarian, dictator, anti-democrat and fundamentalist Erdogan.” They also seemed regretful while discussing how the coup attempt was defeated. FETO leader Fetullah Gulen’s first statement on July 15 was published by the Wall Street Journal on July 17. In the answers he gave to the questions relayed to him via email, Gulen acted as if he was the victim, and released the expression, “this is a plot,” into circulation.

We would like to remind MSNBC that the Turkish public is still expecting an apology for the fake news during the July 15 coup attempt.

Remembering how the Western media approached the coup attempt is important in terms of making sense of today. Although Turkey has so far concrete evidence proving that FETO members organized the coup attempt, Western politicians and media outlets still display the same cynical approach. The exclusivist and obsessive language used in news reports and opinion articles throughout the coup attempt process still frames the current approach to the incident.

Had they approached the event through a lens of universal achievements of democracy, they would have made news about people who stopped tanks with their bare hands, who stood up against bullets, and who suffered severe injuries due to the bombs dropped by fighter jets. Such news stories would set an example to the peoples of the world and make a great contribution to the collective memory of humanity. However, these media outlets chose to ignore these stories.

The power of bare hands against tanks

As stressed above, a comparison based on a single photograph will help us remember the double standards applied by media organizations. There is a striking resemblance between the image from Tiananmen Square, which is imprinted on the memories and images reflected from the July 15 resistance in terms of manifesting the civilian will against tyranny.

Western media outlets still serve the image of the Chinese civilian who stood up against tanks during the Tiananmen incidents in 1989 as an example of resistance. This is exactly how it should be. Those who resisted must be given credit for their heroism.

On the other hand, Western journalists do not seem to remember or simply ignore the heroic resistance of the Turkish people on the night of July 15, 2016, although that night witnessed many similar moments of heroism. This is undoubtedly ignored on purpose. Even though some of the images that portray the resistance in the best way are owned by Reuters, AP and AFP, the general trend of ignorance still continues. This shows the absence of an unbiased attitude that is needed in democracy-media relations.

There is a striking resemblance between the image from Tiananmen Square, which is imprinted on the memories and images reflected from the July 15 resistance in terms of manifesting the civilian will against tyranny.

For instance, the striking photo of Metin Dogan, a citizen who laid in front of a tank to stop it at Ataturk Airport on the night of July 15, did not circulate among the global media as a symbol of civilian resistance defending democracy against coup plotters.

Similarly, the courage displayed by a citizen named Sabri Unal, who tried to stop the tanks in Uskudar, was astounding. Unal stood up against a tank and laid in front of it when it did not stop. When the tank ran him over, Unal miraculously survived and leaped back to his feet again. Then he moved on to stop the second tank advancing him. He lay down once again but the second tank left him injured. The footage showing such stories of heroism were recorded by security cameras that night and are available on the internet. These instances of defending democracy against coups and civilian politics against authoritarianism can barely be found in history.

The two images I mentioned above are only two instances of the resistance that we witnessed on the night of July 15. Every moment of the civilian resistance against F-16 jets, tanks, and other armed vehicles is a testament to the heroism and courage displayed that night. They constitute the most striking examples of fighting for freedom, democracy, and popular will.

Undoubtedly, the global media does not only refuse to see the facts on the subject, but also creates a perspective that rebuts the reality and meaning of that night.

FETO is a genuine threat

Had the Western media outlets approached the subject in the framework of democratic standards instead of accusing Turkey within the three years since the coup attempt, they would have realized the serious threat posed by FETO in their own countries. Surely, it is not too late to realize this. They still have a chance and can present the democracy heroes they have so far ignored to the global public. On the night of July 15, civilians and journalists in Turkey demonstrated the strong ties between media and democracy. The country showed the world that military junta attempts do not have a chance as long as these two structures support each other without hesitation. The solidarity we sought was practiced that night for the first time in Turkey. Acting against the democracy-media theory in such a positive context also indicates that Western media outlets yield to biases and black propaganda.

Faruk Yaslıçimen, Politics Today’s Editor-in-Chief interviewed Dr. Hakkı Öcal, a renowned senior Turkish journalist and a regular contributor for Milliyet daily and also a faculty member of Ibn Haldun University Faculty of Communication about the increasing activeness of foreign media outlets in Turkey.

---

Dr. Öcal, as you know there are foreign media companies that are recently opening branches in Turkey and making publications in Turkish. I would like to ask first of all, do you remember similar examples of such concentrated efforts in the media sector in history?

Years ago, I remember almost a similar case. All major American and British media companies and government corporations had all of a sudden started their Kurdish broadcasts and publications in print in Iraq. Months later we found out that the U.S. was going to invade Iraq. So, the fact that foreign media companies nowadays are showing keen interest in Turkey and are publishing in Turkish makes me feel edgy. I don’t feel comfortable not because that anybody is going to invade Turkey but the logical extension of what they did in 1991 signals a kind of intervention. For instance, before the invasion of Iraq, the Voice of America (VOA) started its Kurdish broadcast overnight. In Turkish we have a saying, “fol yok yumurta yok,” and VOA created a publication company named Middle East Broadcasting House in Maryland (MERNA) that targeted Iraqi Kurds via satellites. The signals were downloaded and distributed through U.S. naval ships in the Gulf to Kurds. So, they established direct communication. Jokes aside, this little anecdote has nothing to do with Turkey right now.

This is a very serious joke indeed…

I don’t want to alarm anybody but that is just a historical fact. Anyway, in the BBC’s founding corporation document it states that the people of the United Kingdom need to communicate directly with the corners of the world where their own government does not provide independent, verified and multi-faceted communication for their own people. By the same token, the United States of America stopped VOA broadcasting in Turkish after Turgut Özal allowed private media broadcasting and they said ‘now Turkish people have an independent and verified information and communication system in the world therefore we don’t need to communicate with Turkish people directly.’

Aren’t Turkish citizens informed independently about what’s happening inside and outside of the country? This is what it means if foreign media outlets start broadcasting in Turkish for Turkish people.

So, they are both aware of and state that they are deliberately communicating not with the governments but the people, citizens of a country and manipulate…

Well, they don’t say manipulate because it does not sound nice or democratic. The word is to allow them to respect the people’s right to information and if their government is not providing this we are doing that. This is also in the VOA Charter that was passed in 1942.

Why have they all of a sudden started communicating directly with the Turkish people now? Is the Turkish media not doing this? Aren’t Turkish citizens informed independently about what’s happening inside and outside of the country? Don’t they get information from any other local sources? This is what it means if they start broadcasting in Turkish for Turkish people. They are giving the message that “Turkish people! You don’t have independent information channels where you obtain information about what’s happening in your country and in the world. So, we are going to provide these for you.” It also means that “Turkish media companies online broadcasting and publication outlets are not doing this. But we do.” Is this really the case?

We have to accept that recently media ownership changes are frequent in Turkey. Most of the time the reason is economic and print media is not profitable anymore due to online publications. So many traditional publishers are getting out of printed media and switching to other lines of business. Internet publication in Turkey is very rich and plural but not paying well. When you run a website, yes you may survive, but this is not going to make you rich. Traditional publishers used to make a lot of money out of the print journalism business. But now they don’t find online platforms profitable enough and prefer to concentrate more on the mining industry or transportation in order to make more money.

Unfortunately for the last fifty years in Turkey as elsewhere, traditional print media bosses have not been journalists themselves, but businessmen.

Unfortunately for the last fifty years in Turkey as elsewhere, traditional print media bosses have not been journalists themselves, but businessmen. Their first priority has been to make money. So, when diminishing returns become the case, they can get out of the industry easily. Some investor groups get together and create pools to take the ownership of such businesses. These are not the traditional media bosses as we know, but they are what we emphatically call Anatolian Tigers or their sons who represent the second generation. Since they don’t have enough money to buy such huge multimillion-dollar conglomerates, they pool their assets to purchase them. Due to this method, they are disparagingly called “the pool media,” which accounts for companies supporting the AK Party government or the Erdogan Administration.

There is of course a pro-government media but wrongly put into one basket. The real problem is that it is only the ownership that the Turkey’s political opposition doesn’t like. I mean look at some new media people, some came from Trabzon to Istanbul with their business partners and become a newspaper boss. However, the age-old Istanbul capitalists, the Istanbul bourgeois don’t like seeing someone from Malatya or from Çankırı owning a media company. They never pay attention to its content or take interest in the large variety of opinions in these newspapers. Who can say Yenişafak for example is 100% pro-government? There is also very harsh criticism in newspapers, which are unanimously labelled as pro-government.

So, the heart of the problem as far as I understand from what you are saying is that the overall approach to the media hasn’t changed. There are structural problems in regards to  media ownership in Turkey. But now we are living in the twenty first century. Our lives are occupied with social media and the internet. Now we have a plural atmosphere and there are pro-government as well as opposition media outlets, which are indeed influential. Given the fact that we have influential opposition media in Turkey, there is still the question as to why foreign media companies are investing in Turkey. Or as in the case of +90, they are uniting their forces and founding a YouTube channel or take Independent Türkçe. Why is this happening?

There is no historical precedence for this. I mean BBC, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle and France 24 never got together even during the Second World War. Yes, during WWII, there was no internet but many other channels that these could cooperate. The western alliance did not do this. Why are they doing this now? Especially now. What’s happening in Turkey is the answer of this question, I think. It must be something they don’t like. I guess it is a new Turkey that is becoming more active internationally. So far, Turkey was a docile member of the Western alliance. It was so pliant a member of alliance. Yes, from time to time it caused headaches like the resistance to the U.S. request to stop the opium poppy cultivation during the Bülent Ecevit period, and Turkey’s Cyprus operation caused an arms embargo but all in all, Turkey has been a quiet member of the western alliance.

To convince the Western states to lift the embargo, Turkey tried hard to explain why they had to act in Cyprus by producing arguments like saving Turks from Greek cruelty that was taking place on the island, etc. But take Ecevit’s photo later taken with Bill Clinton – that was a shameful one. From that Turkey, we came to a Turkey, a new Turkey which says “how come you can talk about embargos or sanctions?” The country now demands its rights and questions unjust treatment in contrast to the Ecevit period, when the country was trying gently to explain Turkey’s position. But Turkey today simply says “You can’t do it. If you do, I will reciprocate.” And it does.

This Turkey is different and can successfully reject the U.S. attempt to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. No other country has objected before Turkey did. Turkey gathered the The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) general assembly in Istanbul and following the convention almost all countries in the UN except six rejected the U.S. move. Turkey singlehandedly opposed the U.S. policy decision. It is the people of this new Turkey foreign media outlets try directly reach and communicate with. What are they going to say? Partly fake news that now spreads all over the place.

Are they really spreading fake news or misinformation?

Not necessarily. They are telling a version of the story in order to give a message. As you know Marshall McLuhan says in his book titled “Understanding Media” that medium is the message now. You need to reach certain conclusions from the format. For instance, you read a mainstream U.S. newspaper that the story is attributed to an “unnamed official” you may be sure that this story is fed by a government official. It is not an ordinary news story, but a targeted message. They want to install certain ideas into people’s mind; they want to have them think that the Turkish government is wrong, but the U.S., Germany or France even the whole world is against Turkey. The content of the news story is not important anymore, it is the fear that they want to transmit.

I am not simply saying the BBC, Voice of America and others spread fake information about Turkey. But the way they editorialize news items carries a message.

Nowadays, the U.S. is threatening that Turkey will be excluded from the F-35 fighter jet program. As many U.S. experts testify Turkey’s purchase of the Russian S-400 Air Defense System is not incompatible with F-35s. But the tone of the threats, the wording of the statements, and their timing make is so clear that it is not a simple technical matter. The western media outlets and the Gulf-financed websites are going to emphasize the U.S.-based strategic opinion that Turkey is siding with the U.S.’ enemies. That’s editorializing the content. This is what they are going to do. Do not look for the age-old dictums of the free and independent phrases that the information should be balanced, that you have to carry contrary opinions in your story. I am not simply saying the BBC, Voice of America and others spread fake information about Turkey. But the way they editorialize news items carries a message. The news stories you carry as well as those you don’t also matters.

You are following these media outlets closely. Can you tell us how and what they choose to publish or how they tend to editorialize their content?

You don’t see anything coming from the Erdogan administration. The words of the Turkish side are always in the second or third paragraph. At the very top you always see accusations coming from unnamed sources or very selective headlines. The research shows that on the internet people are not going to read below the fold. They read the headline, the first paragraph, and that’s it. All the “positive” sections about the Turkish government are below the fold. People don’t read them. Therefore, when they say that they present a balanced story it is not really meaningful. Nobody ever reads the second page. The headlines are very selectively editorialized news items.

Turkish people got accustomed to the publications of BBC Türkçe, DW Türkçe and others but there is also Sputnik Türkçe, which is Russian. Even though Turkey and Russia have been on good terms for some time and are pursuing joint investments, Sputnik Türkçe still publishes a lot of anti-government content. How do you explain this?

Russia, politically speaking, has never been a hundred percent friend of Turkey. We are nowadays discussing Turkey’s full membership to the EU and NATO membership. This mechanically leads people to think that if Turkey distances itself from the Western alliance, the country will quickly align itself with Russia. I think that shouldn’t be the case and won’t be the case. Turkey will not leave the Western alliance soon or ever; I can say ever. Because since early Ottoman expansion, the orientation was towards the West. The primary aim of the Turks has always been westward expansion. Turks are western oriented.

Russia, politically speaking, has never been a hundred percent friend of Turkey. Turks are western oriented.

But let’s assume that S-400 air defense systems are placed and activated on Turkish soil and Turkey is kicked out of the F-35 program and plus in retaliation the country purchased Russian SU-57, fifth generation jet fighter. NATO cannot expel Turkey but can make life so difficult for Turkey that it leaves the Alliance. Anybody thinks that such a scenario would end with Turkey’s alignment with Russia. I think this is not going to be the case. Because Turkey and Russia have never historically been friends.

So, you mean that Sputnik Turkey’s publication policy is related to the preferences of the Russian state?

They accuse Americans, but they do exactly the same. Look at the Idlib situation right now. The Assad regime is bombing Idlib despite the agreements reached during Sochi and Astana summits. Russians are bombing Idlib too. What’s happening? Haven’t we reached to an agreement in these summits? Idlib was under the protection of Turkey, which promised to stop any violations and terrorist infiltration to Syria. They argue that Turkey is not guarding Idlib as supposed but Turkey asked them to show one example of terrorist infiltration. Indeed, there is no proof of such terrorist infiltration or activities from Idlib.

What’s happening in Idlib is not acceptable. Russia has much more stake in peace in Syria or as much benefit as Turkey does from the peace in Syria. According to some unconfirmed press reports, in the middle of the night, the Turkish Ministry of Defense had to call the Russian Ministry telling them that they had to stop the bombings. These things are not supposed to happen in an ideal partnership. Sputnik or another Russian website is not supposed to be anti-Turkey. You can well be anti-government and Russian experts or statesmen can criticize the acts of the Turkish government in Syria. This is part of freedom of information and conscience. Any Russian news outlet should be reporting this. Here, the editorializing matters. But look at the people working for Sputnik Türkçe, they are either workers of former FETO-owned news outlets or some imbalanced critical individuals.

I am following Sputnik for a long time. I have been its very vocal critic on Twitter. Whenever I catch non-journalistic behavior from them, I expose it.

There is such a thing as press freedom and freedom of expression. But the overall tendency in the Russian media, I mean the editorializing and biased selectiveness matter. I have been following Sputnik for a long time. I have been its very vocal critic on Twitter. Whenever I catch non-journalistic behavior from them, I expose it. Well, because we have to. I am a former journalist. If I were an active journalist operating in the editorial board, I would expose their non-journalistic behavior as much as I could. The first and foremost duty of journalists is to upkeep the profession’s ethics. We have to warn anybody who abuses our ages-old conventions in journalism. Everybody knows what these conventions are. What Russians are doing now is not proper journalism. It is selective mouthpiece of certain opinions, always against Turkey, always biased, always against the Erdogan administration.

So, they are falling into the same pitfall with Western media outlets when it comes to news on Turkey? They criticize the imbalanced nature of the western media, while showing and representing another example of such behavior.

Oh, yes. I am sure Voice of America would be very happy to have Sputnik on their YouTube channel!

Do you think they are influential in Turkey?

Thank God, no! First of all, computer penetration is still low in Turkey. Yes, cell phone penetration has almost doubled during the last two years. Everybody in Turkey has 2.8 cell phones now. When it comes to desktop web penetration, the number is lower than the European average. Again, in modern Turkey, people are not totally out of oral tradition. I’ll give you an example. Boğaziçi University is an age-old modern university and anyone may presume that people enroll their kids are also very modern, rich, Istanbul bourgeois with experiences abroad. However, as the registration dates are announced in newspapers, parents start to call the university switchboard and ask “Is that the correct registration date that I read on the newspaper?” This oral tradition is still very much alive. In communication theory, we call them gatekeepers. Gatekeepers are people who should hear something and convey information to real people. Even if you read something on the internet, they don’t automatically believe it. They discuss it with real people and try to confirm the information from mouth of another real person. This is the oral tradition.

But we have a young population and Turkey is among the top social media consumers in the world. Turkish citizens spend much more time than many countries in the world and these foreign media companies in Turkey are using social media very effectively and exercise influence over the younger generations. Might this have an effect in the upcoming years?

It might in the next ten years. Young people are not political as such. They are out of touch with daily political developments. An impact on this audience is not overwhelmingly important as to change Turkey’s domestic and foreign policy preferences. A) They do not talk about politics among their peers. This is quickly observable. They are mostly engaged in music, arts, culture, but not politics.

This is true but let me object right at this point. Politics per se is not one of their enthusiasms but occasionally certain topics can immediately appeal to their interests and young people might get politicized for certain issues for a specific time. We experienced this during the violent Gezi Park protests. Those people who were thought to be apathetic to politics got politicized all of a sudden and occupied the streets. Will this partial politicization change the course of Turkish politics or not? Does social media increasingly influence the Turkish youth and lead them to politicization – especially with the satirical language of a politically charged media outlet for example?

You are right. I agree with this portrayal of Turkish youth and this is already happening. There are lots of internet-based organizations, gathering in virtual or actual spaces in which is filled by young men and women together. The Gezi Park event was organized on the internet and got out of hand because of the internet’s non-controllable character. I agree with this but this is not widespread. It is not happening all over the place. This happened only in Istanbul, a bit in Ankara and Izmir. But other than these, we did not have such an exposition in other provinces.

Gezi was an exception. Gezi happened all over Turkey. Now we have learned that the Gezi Park event took place as a result of months of preparations. I think it is not going to repeat itself. But you are right. There is grave potential there. The only thing to balance this is the family structure. In Turkey, young people are much more independent and exercise an influence on young people. A traditional Turkish family structure, for example, would tolerate a young person’s participation into a political rally, whether pro- or anti-government. I believe that +90, Gulf sponsored websites and Sputnik Türkçe are not fundamentally or single-handedly effective over the Turkish youth. They might eventually be influential, but not soon.

There are some in Turkey who regard these developments as a potential national security threat. Are you agreement with this opinion? Or do you believe that the gatekeepers can keep the gates?

The gatekeepers will keep the gates. And Turkey is a big country. Its army, its police force, satellites, etc. provide enough intelligence to maintain security. The issue concerns not national security but national politics. Maybe because I earned my life as a journalist, I don’t see anything bad that could come from free expression. No harm can come from talking, writing or making a film. It is communication, which is one of the assets among many others. Turkey is strong enough to defeat ill-effects of disinformation. If the whole world gets together and creates an anti-Turkey and anti-Islam communication in Turkey, it is not going to work. People will go to mosque, run to rallies of political parties and listen to their leaders.

These +90 and other Gulf-sponsored media outlets are targeting Turkish politics but Turkey is strong enough to resist them.

I am sure no political leader or opinion leader in Turkey, even those totally against the AK Party government, is ever going to allow anything that threatens Turkey’s national security. So, let them talk and speak. As the famous saying goes, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” No harm can come from free communication. But we need to know, who is doing what and why. These +90 and Gulf-sponsored media outlets are targeting Turkish politics but Turkey is strong enough to resist them. There are also websites being founded spreading correct information against misinformation.

So, the media is a legitimate field of contestation

It has been and it will be. It does not scare me at all. What is scaring me is politicians. Now we have John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and an inexperienced U.S. president. The world has become more dangerous not because of communication but because of politics.

Thank you very much Dr. Hakkı Öcal.

It was no wonder that Turkey would have experienced an economic slowdown after the exchange-rate shock that happened in May and August 2018, which has its roots not in economics but politics, as U.S. President Donald Trump made crystal-clear in his remarks and attacks against Turkey and even the Turkish Lira. However, the Turkish economy has the strength to quickly overcome this slowdown, despite incredibly biased and negative coverage of western media outlets in general regarding the Turkish economy.

It is obvious that the Turkish economy fared considerably well with an average GDP growth rate of 5.5 percent since 2002. More to the point, despite suffering several blows in the last few years such as the Gezi Park events, the 17-25 December “judiciary” coup attempt, PKK and DAESH terror attacks, and most importantly the July 15 military coup attempt, the Turkish economy managed to keep on track, grew well and averted an economic meltdown. It is not an exaggeration that almost no country could have managed to avoid any of these crises, yet Turkey has overcome all of them. And we should add up financial attacks that took place in the last two-and-a-half years against the Turkish economy to the list of blows that occurred since 2013. Right after the July 15 military coup attempt and with the growing tensions between the U.S. and Turkey, the Turkish economy started to suffer financial attacks, which were fueled considerably by the U.S.-based “international” credit rating agencies and western media outlets, alongside, of course, the U.S. itself.

Despite several blows, the Turkish economy managed to keep on track, grew well and averted an economic meltdown.

Let’s face it: the approach of western media outlets towards Turkey has never been objective or friendly, contrary to the extremely naïve discourse that they were only after the dissemination of knowledge. No, in the final analysis, everybody is after keeping and increasing power. And, for a media outlet based on and, quite intuitively, on the side of the world’s hegemonic power or its “traditional allies,” being stronger requires not spreading more information on an objective basis, but, intuitively, twisting and skewing facts, according to their “interests” and needs in general.

Exactly for this reason at large, white people, i.e. the “original” westerners, cannot be terrorists, but lone wolfs, lunatics or “formerly angelic boys,” when they shoot dead large numbers of people with semi-automatic and/or automatic weapons. However, “non-whites” and Muslims can easily be terrorists. And, wait a minute, they can all be potential terrorists, as the long-lasting repercussions of 9/11 clearly attest. Moreover, illegal deeds such as spying and terror-related activities are so eagerly denied and swept under the carpet of journalism when it comes to Turkey. But when the self-interest of western countries is at stake, “journalists” could easily be “enemy agents” or “activists,” hence criminals or possible criminals, respectively.

Is this good and objective journalism? We all know that it is not. And, why would you stop here? Why would you not pursue your self-interest when it necessitates twisting facts and events in other areas, such as… economics? At this point, I should openly state that arguing otherwise, i.e. that these media outlets are just making news objectively, is the greatest conspiracy theory by far in the world.

While western media outlets were never “fans” of Turkey, after 2013 their stance against Turkey increasingly deteriorated to the point of stark hostility that we are witnessing today. Their reports regarding Turkey has almost always been on the negative side, and mostly on the far negative side. And, their extremely negative reports on Turkey have almost always been rhetorical, not analytical, i.e., they are not well-structured, they fail to give a full picture with right connections, and, incredibly, they fail to base their “assessments” on relevant numbers. Their reports are extremely short on numbers and very long on politics, and harsh criticisms and “assessments” that they badly fail to substantiate. When they seldom do give one or two numbers, they do this in a blatantly subjective and deficient way. What they do is exactly “negative framing.”

The Turkish government is ultraconservative with regards to budget discipline, yet those western media outlets have been talking about their “worries” regarding fiscal profligacy in Turkey. Really?

For example, as I touched upon extensively in one of my previous articles, some of these media outlets put forward the level of “short-term foreign exchange liabilities of nonfinancial firms” in Turkey as a justification for their “assessment” that the Turkish companies were in a bad situation. However, they failed to provide the other side of the coin, i.e. the level of short-term foreign exchange assets of the same nonfinancial firms, which were 6.5 billion dollars more than their corresponding liabilities.

Even more curious is that in the last couple of months, those western media outlets frequently put forward budget deficit and public debt level as a worrying factor regarding the macroeconomic stability in Turkey. However, they incredibly fail to mention the relevant numbers. Why? The answer is crystal clear: Turkey has absolutely no such a problem. Public debt to GDP ratio in Turkey is just 28 percent, one of the lowest in the whole world. And budget deficit to GDP ratio in the last year was around 2 percent, which is well below the related Maastricht criterion, in the year of economic stagnation. More to the point, the Turkish economy contracted by 3 percent in the last quarter of 2018 as a result of the currency shock, but the government did not try to increase its spending level in order to boost the economy as the public spending level increased by just 0.5 percent in that quarter.

With such a low level of public debt to GDP ratio, the Turkish government could have easily increased its deficit to an extent in congruent with the Keynesian countercyclical fiscal policy understanding and without sacrificing budget discipline

Make no mistake: with such a low level of public debt to GDP ratio, the government could have easily increased its deficit to an extent in congruent with the Keynesian countercyclical fiscal policy understanding and without sacrificing budget discipline, particularly after the currency shock of 2018. Turkey had and has ample room to do that. But it chose to stick to very low levels of public debt.

Yes, it is incredible. The Turkish government is ultraconservative with regards to budget discipline, yet those western media outlets have been talking about their “worries” regarding fiscal profligacy in Turkey. Really?

All in all, western journalism in general is at the grasp of incredibly subjective and biased journalism to such an extent that they think that they have the liberty of framing everything as they please, even when the facts show the opposite direction. Blacks can be whites, whites can be blacks according to their self-interest. And their self-purported objectivism is just a convenient but required guise to “sell” their product of biased journalism, which ultimately is in place to serve their self-interest.

The Turkish economy has been going through a severe financial attack – palpably waged by the U.S. – for some time now. The tweet posted by Donald Trump against the Turkish Lira over Turkey not releasing Brunson is now well known. The remarks of Trump’s social security adviser, John Bolton, are equally “illuminative” regarding the nature of what has been going on:

“This crisis could be over instantly if they [Turkey] did the right thing as a NATO ally, part of the West, and release pastor Brunson without condition.”

It is apparent that the fundamentals of the Turkish economy are strong and that there is no justification whatsoever for such a slump in the Turkish Lira with relevant “figures” such as public debt to GDP and external debt to GDP ratios.

Despite this fact, most Western media outlets have been extremely biased in their coverage regarding Turkey and the Turkish economy. For them, the Turkish economy is not in good shape at all and the plunge of the Turkish Lira is all Turkey’s fault. However, they badly fail as they try to support and underpin their allegations regarding the Turkish economy. For the most part, they resort to political rhetoric, and not relevant economic data. And when they seldom try to support their arguments with numbers, they cherry-pick the data that is congruent with their “fabricated story” regarding the Turkish economy.

Take “short-term foreign exchange liabilities of nonfinancial firms” in Turkey. Some of these media outlets address this ratio to show how the Turkish economy and Turkish firms are vulnerable to external shocks. However, they curiously fail to mention the other side of the story: “short-term foreign exchange assets of nonfinancial firms.” It is apparent that the liability side does not provide the full picture without mentioning the asset side. This is bad journalism to say the least. Then what is the truth? The truth is that the short-term financial assets of Turkish nonfinancial firms are 6.5 billion dollars higher than their short-term financial liabilities!

More to the point, they consistently fail to mention the exchange rate position of the Turkish financial industry, which is one of the most critical figures. What this figure tells us? It is that the Turkish banking sector has around 2 billion TL surplus of net foreign exchange position! Moreover, the capital adequacy ratio for the banking sector in Turkey is over 16 percent. So, it is apparent that the Turkish banking industry is well-hedged and in a rather good position.

These media outlets never mention the public debt to GDP ratio in Turkey, which is 28 percent, and is one of the lowest in the world. They also fail to mention that gross external debt to GDP in Turkey is 53 percent, which is not too low, but not too high either. There are numerous countries where this ratio is much higher than Turkey, such as France (213 percent) and the U.K. (313 percent).

On the other hand, there is one figure that Turkey cannot be proud of, and that is the current account deficit to GDP ratio. Indeed, Turkey has been running relatively high current account deficits for almost two decades thanks mostly to global liquidity abundance and strict monetary policy (particularly between 2002-2008) by the Central Bank of Turkey. In addition, we should add that Turkey has a vibrant and energetic economy to which investors around the world are naturally attracted. The average economic growth rate between 2002 and 2017 was 5.7 percent, which amounts to the doubling of the Turkish economy in just 16 years.

Biased media outlets sometimes try to justify the plunge of the Turkish Lira by appealing to the current account deficit ran by Turkey in hindsight. However, the current account deficit in Turkey did not emerge overnight. More importantly, what the Turkish Lira is experiencing now is not a “correction.” It is much, much more than that. For a currency to depreciate as sharply as the Turkish Lira did, that country must have rather weak economic fundamentals. On the contrary, the Turkish economy and financial industry are strong and robust.

In addition, the Turkish current account deficit to GDP ratio was much higher between 2010-2013 than it is now. The current account deficit in Turkey was already bound to decline due to the inevitable depreciation of the Turkish Lira, as well as other currencies around the world, against the U.S. dollar, as global liquidity abundance has been coming to an end slowly but surely since 2014. Indeed, this is what correction looks like.

One final comparison. The current account deficit to GDP ratio in the U.K. (over 5 percent a year) was considerably higher than that in Turkey between 2013-2016. As of 2017, this ratio was 4 percent for the U.K. I should also add that the external debt to GDP ratio in the U.K. is an incredible 313 percent. This is only 53 percent in Turkey. So? There are no Western media outlets talking about an “imminent” financial crisis in the U.K. Why? Cherry-picked economic data, for a cherry-picked country, Turkey, for clearly political grounds.

When the international responses to the democracy-suspending coups staged throughout Turkey’s political history are considered, the initial silence of the Western democracies in the face of the July 15 attempted coup makes more sense. Particularly in the context of the coups staged in May 27, 1960, March 12, 1971 and September 12, 1980, the policies adopted by the Western democracies stand out as evidence proving that they were defeated by the pragmatism of liberal democracy’s rhetoric of values.

In the aftermath of the 1960 coup, a number of prominent Western media outlets including New York Times, Le Monde, Wall Street Journal, Time, Die Welt, and BBC endeavored to convince their audience to the notion that the coup could be justified for some reasons while encouraging their governments to get in contact with the putschists.

Undeniably, the Turkish intelligentsia who were alienated from their own values and disturbed by then Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and ruling Democrat Party (DP) also contributed to such reflections of the coup in the Western media. Having received a negative response only from the French government among the European countries, the putschists achieved to make themselves accepted in the international arena with the support of the U.S. While Turkey’s dialogue with the European Community (EC) went on following the coup, the pro-Western statements of the putschists regarding NATO and the EC sufficed to convince the Western public opinion.

The West’s efforts to develop ties with the junta by condoning and almost affirming the 1960 coup also fomented the following coups. From 1960 to the end of the Cold War, the coup plotters did not confront any problem of legitimacy in the international arena due to the U.S.’s containment policy towards Russia and strategy of keeping Turkey by its side. Except for some weak protests, tepid condemnations and exceptional and insubstantial sanctions, the juntas in Turkey have always been affirmed by the Western liberal democracies.

Right after the first post-coup contact between then U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Fletcher Warren and the 1960 coup leader Cemal Gürsel, Washington provided financial aid to the junta, which pointed to the hasty demeanor of the U.S. Besides, barely two months passed since the 1960 coup when the U.S. deployed Jupiter ballistic missiles in Turkey against Russia, which was another sign of the volition of cooperation between the junta and the U.S. government.

The U.S. government’s approach to the 1960 coup in Turkey shows a great parallelism with the Obama administration’s approach to the 2013 Egyptian coup staged by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. As can be seen in the coup cases of 1960 Turkey and 2013 Egypt, the first coups staged against the governments formed as a result of free and transparent elections in developing democracies have been accepted as restoration, institutionalization and incorporation of democracy by the U.S. All kinds of support have been provided to military junta regimes including international recognition and financial aid.

The coup on March 12, 1971 was staged shortly after the White House exerted pressures on Süleyman Demirel’s government with regard to opium production, which showed that the approach of the U.S. to the 1960 coup was carried one step further. The junta administration chaired by Nihat Erim, who was assigned by the putschists, won the approval of Washington by banning opium production as requested by the U.S. In so doing, the junta gained legitimacy in the West.

As for the coup staged on September 12, 1980, no change was observed in the approaches of the U.S. and other Western democracies to the junta. It is a widely known anecdote that then CIA station chief in Turkey Paul B. Henze was rumored to have said: “Our boys have done it,” to then U.S. President Jimmy Carter while mentioning the 1980 coup. Although Henze denied saying so after 27 years from the incident in an attempt to recover his public image as a coup advocate, it is a general acceptance among political observers that the White House played a role in the 1980 coup. In view of the increasing influence of Russia in the region after the coup, a strategy was adopted to consolidate Turkey’s position as a U.S. ally.

The U.S.’s supportive attitude to the coups in Turkey has been a determinant in the international arena. Being aware of this factor, the coup plotters endeavored to receive the U.S. support before or during their coup attempts.

Therefore, the U.S. approach to the July 15 coup attempt is required to be examined in detail.

US Response to July 15 Coup Attempt

In the night of July 15, 2016, when it was understood that the military troops’ presence on the streets signalized a coup attempt, the first statement from the U.S. was issued by then Secretary of State John Kerry, who was in Russia in the meantime. After Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım spoke to a live TV broadcast at 11.05 p.m. and stated that there was a military insurrection that would not be allowed by the government, Kerry said at 11.57 p.m.: “I hope there will be stability and peace and continuity within Turkey.”

Stating that he was not informed on what exactly was happening in Turkey, Kerry chose not to articulate any expression showing support to the democratically elected government. While Kerry was issuing this statement, international TV stations had already begun to announce that a coup was being staged in Turkey. During the moments when the coup attempters shot and killed civilians, the U.S. administration continued to watch the incidents in a complete silence.

Retreating into silence and searching for a new position following Kerry’s “peace, stability and continuity” message, the U.S. gave the impression that they were disappointed since the “peace, stability and continuity” message that was issued at 11.57 p.m. would have meant something had the coup attempt succeeded. The timing of this message, which was issued while the elected government was not yet suppressed by the putschists and the government authorities kept resisting, passed into the history of U.S. diplomacy and democracy as a disgrace.

While Kerry’s statement encouraged the coup attempters even more, a number of senior diplomats representing Turkey called their counterparts at the U.S. Embassy and the White House to point out that such a statement was unacceptable. Highlighting that this statement of Washington, which did not give any support to the government, could be read as a support to the coup plotters, they asked the U.S. government to issue a statement siding with democracy.

In the statements, he issued to the international media outlets, Presidential Spokesperson İbrahim Kalın called the allies of Turkey to stand up against the coup attempt. Yet, those calls were not adequately answered by the U.S. administration.

At 12.13 a.m. in that night, a declaration by pro-coup soldiers was read at the TRT, claiming they had taken control of the country. The declaration stressed on the relations with NATO and reassured about the duties and commitments as part of the NATO alliance. The U.S. gave its next response when the TRT was taken over by the putschists.

The statement made on the White House’s official Twitter account only expressed that the incidents in Turkey were closely followed and President Obama was informed on the subject. It was 12.17 a.m. when the White House issued this statement. Only six minutes after this statement, a substantial move that turned the tables came from President Erdoğan. At 12.26 a.m., Erdoğan called people to take to the streets and resist the coup attempt. Upon that, people started pouring into streets to defy the insurrection, which was not foreseen by the coup plotters.

Within minutes, the putschists began to retreat in the face of the determined resistance of citizens. As from 02.00 a.m., the pro-coup troops were started to be detained. The first supportive statement from the U.S. was issued when it became obvious that the coup attempt would be foiled. At 02.05 a.m., the White House called authorities to support the elected government. But the word “coup” was abstained in the statement.

The U.S. only took a clear stance upon the failure of the coup attempt. Kerry stated on July 16 that he had a phone conversation with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, adding that the U.S. provided full support to the democratically elected government and its democratic establishments. The U.S. officials preferred to issue statements that were supportive of the elected government by abstaining from using the word “coup”.

Given that the U.S. had also refused to call the Egyptian coup a coup, Washington gave the initial signals that they would adopt a strategy similar to their stance on the Egyptian coup with regard to the July 15. On July 24, 2016, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden paid a visit to Turkey to restore the damage of the policy Washington adopted in the coup night. Expressing that he stands for democracy and admires the resistance of Turkish people, Biden remarked that he was moved by the leadership and courage displayed by President Erdoğan during the night of the coup attempt.

During his visit, Biden underscored several times that the U.S. did not side with the coup, which might mean that the White House felt an embarrassment over its reticence in the night of July 15. The U.S. Vice President’s remarks that condemned the coup attempt and praised the resistance for democracy will pass into the history of Turkey-U.S. relations as trivia. On the other hand, Washington’s first statement during the night of the coup attempt will always be remembered: “We hope stability and peace and continuity.”

After the purge of such a bloody military insurgency, Turkey, as a respectable member of the international community, which had held national elections since the 19th century, expected a positive reaction from its Western partners and Western media. This was an understandable expectation since Western countries represent themselves as markers of democracy, advocates of the supremacy of the will of the people, and guardians of legitimately elected governments, which may be discharged only again by elections.However, Turkey’s Western partners failed to raise a powerful voice against the July 15 coup attempt. They failed to raise even a feeble voice. After thirty-nine days, US Vice-President Joe Biden visited Ankara; no high-level politicians from Germany, France, or the UK visited Turkey. Most of the statements after the coup attempt were of the nature of expressing regret that the coup had failed.

Specifically, during the last days of July, James Clapper, the Director of US National Intelligence, complained by saying, “Many of our interlocutors in the Turkish Army have been either purged or arrested”; in the same vein, Joseph Votel, the Commander of US Central Command, was “concerned” about, not the coup attempt, but how US operations in the region will be affected by the attempt. Such statements raise the suspicion of whether the US might have been behind the coup attempt. A few days after the coup attempt, John Kerry, US Secretary of State, made a statement to the effect that operations against FETO members should not go too far, which was sufficient to establish a background for the criticisms directed at the US. Tens of articles of the kind supporting the failed coup were published in the mainstream Western media such as the New York Times, the Guardian, Time, CNN, the Washington Post, BBC, the Times, and Der Spiegel. It is no wonder that such publications led to deep disappointment in Turkey.

Anti-Turkey Stand of the Western Media in History

As one considers the background of perception management in the Western media against Turkey, it is seen that this disappointment goes far back into the past and has been practiced for decades by contemporary media outlets. Western media, to a large extent, has positioned itself against Turkey on many issues. For instance, Kemal Karpat, in his book entitled Politicization of Islam, in a section on press, talks about how European countries used the Western press against the Ottomans, helping us understand better the current state of affairs with the following example: “The foreign powers used their ‘free’ press to excoriate and condemn Abdulhamid without causing diplomatic incidents except on rare occasions. The French used Le Figaro, while the Russians enlisted Le Nord, a Brussels newspaper, into their service and financed the famous salon of Madame Olga Novikov in London, in which Turks were described as unfit for Western civilization and as promoters of ‘Muslim fanaticism’.” The excerpt underlines the fact that, since the 19th century, Western countries have sought to keep the Ottomans under control by using the press and financing certain lobbies to demonize the Turks.

A similar assessment is made by Orhan Koloğlu, in his book entitled The History of Press. Koloğlu recounts that, during the period 1828-1829, the beginning of the Greek uprising, thousands of Muslim children, women, and elderly were massacred by the Greeks; yet, the Western press pointed at the Ottoman State as the side that committed the massacres; such a blatant and overt disinformation campaign by the Western press was astonishing to the Ottomans. In the 19th century, the same attitude was exhibited by the Western press in the cases of Serbia, Bulgaria, and Armenia.

The Western media’s anti-Turkey publications after the July 15 coup attempt, and the two examples I presented from the 19th century, demonstrate that Western media outlets target the victimized rather than the guilty. As one traces back over the vital issues Turkey has faced, it is clear that the Western media has continued incessantly with the same publication strategy, unless the West had a direct self-interest at stake.

Edward Said’s Diagnosis

The anti-Turkey campaign conducted by the European and the American mainstream media is in perfect agreement with the emphasis made by Edward Said in his book Culture and Imperialism. In his work, Said tells about “the existence of an international media that invades insidiously an incomprehensively vast land.” Because, the matter of transforming many different events in many different places around the globe into news, after filtering them through Western interests, has begun to establish another method of hegemony.

To illustrate this, for example, the operations conducted by Turkey against the terror organizations DAESH and PKK have been distorted by both the New York Times and Der Spiegel to claim that “Turkey is killing civilians, invading the region, and killing the Kurds.” As visual misinformation, pictures of people killed by the Russian bombardments in the region were used non-factually. The increasing dosage of such publications after the July 15 coup attempt is proof that the anti-Turkey campaign is being escalated deliberately. On the night of July 15, NBC announced that “Erdogan, refused landing in Istanbul, is reported to be seeking asylum in Germany,” which was certainly a lie; yet, the channel has not apologized for this misinformation. The cover of a special Der Spiegel issue on Turkey on September 11, 2016, carries both visually and content-wise stamps of orientalism. On the cover, the magazine uses such expressions as, “Ein Land verliert die Freiheit” (a country loses its freedom) and “the dictator in fight with his own cities,” and pictures the minarets of the Blue Mosque (Sultanahmet Mosque) as fired rockets. In tone with Said’s emphasis, a typical distortion and otherization has been committed by the magazine. That is, the news is veiled as it is propagated.

Journalism as Fictionalism instead of Objectivity

The above excerpts from historians Karpat and Koloğlu show that the Western media has a long and prejudiced history against Turkey, which still continues today. In this historical stretch, it appears that there have been many politically charged, manipulated, and constructed news stories published and disseminated by the Western media against Turkey. Thus, disregarding the principle of objectivity, and other principles and regulations that define the realm of professional ethics are ignored when it comes to Turkey.

No doubt, Turkey has to respond to such campaigns and these efforts must include both public diplomacy and lobbying activities. However, deep prejudice and the absence of objectivity exhibited by the Western media against Turkey are major problems mostly related to the administrators of the biased newspapers and to their cultural capitals. It is difficult to find a direct remedy for this, because the manipulation of the media is a result of conscious and deliberate choice. In spite of this, Turkey should never give up in the attempt to remind prejudiced media managers of the fundamental principles of journalism and the simple facts and rules of democracy.

Democracy and democratic values have long been at the epicenter of international affairs. Universally applied democracy has come to determine not only internal but also international affairs. Despite this, democracy has remained a controversial issue and, not in a few cases, has been used as a tool in the hands of those who claim to be standard bearers of democratic values: the West.

On July 15, the Turkish state structure was threatened by a coup attempt, which aimed to overthrow the Turkish government and democracy. Governmental institutions that represent democracy in Turkey such as the Grand National Assembly (TBMM) or media outlets were bombed and innocent civilians who strove to defend their nation were killed. More than 250 men, women and children were killed during the coup attempt organized by the Fetullah Gülen Terror Organization (FETO), which eventually failed to achieve its goal.

For the first time in Turkey, politics, the media and people united against the common enemy: the coup plotters. Nevertheless, during and after the coup attempt, another opponent actor emerged. Surprisingly, some international actors, both leading politicians and media outlets, were disappointed by the failure of the coup attempt and still fail to recognize the democratic values to which the Turkish citizens firmly adhered. Moreover, some of these actors strove to exacerbate the situation. At this point, it is fair to ask whether these international actors want a democratic or a non-democratic Turkey. It seems that their choice is a non-democratic Turkey, which will follow their recommendations and submit to their will.

The stance of these international actors can be analyzed under three subtitles: politics, the media and Turkish expats. With the exception of the latter, the behavior of the other actors was not fair –not only towards the Turkish state but also, most importantly, towards the Turkish citizens.

During the first hours of the coup attempt, state leaders and government representatives made vague statements. It was clear that their stance towards the coup attempt was to be shaped according to its outcome. As it became evident that the putschists were losing ground, only then did the state leaders begin to declare their support for the democratically elected government. This pattern was followed primarily by the US and other Western countries. A striking example is the message directed to the US citizens from the US embassy in Turkey in which the coup attempt was called an “uprising”.

While politicians were reluctant to make politically incorrect moves, the media acted as it habitually has done during the last years: it vilified Erdoğan. From the beginning of the coup attempt, Western media did not hesitate to announce that the Turkish government had fallen and that the military was in control. News about Erdoğan requesting asylum in Germany was widely broadcast. In addition, even when the president, the prime minister and other leaders declared that the state was in control of the situation and that this was just a coup attempt, Western media did not transmit this critical information to their audiences.

Fabricated news about Turkey occupied the headlines of the Western media and these were unfortunately not mere exceptions. In fact, Turkey has become immune to such kinds of hoax, though the Western public has not. The Western media almost unanimously began to accuse the Turkish government and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan directly or indirectly and are still trying to portray him as culpable in these events. First, the mainstream Western media did not mention the names of those who attempted the coup. They have been portraying FETO as a peaceful face of Islam and Western countries continue to harbor the organization’s leader and leading personalities in their respective countries. Moreover, the Western media and politicians forget that the organizers of the coup attempt–FETO–pose an imminent threat to the security of Turkey, and the measures taken in the aftermath of the coup are the same as any state would take to protect its own national security.

Second, the Western media focused solely on President Erdoğan, and did not mention at all how the putschists bombed the capital city, how the army helicopters killed more than 250 innocent women, men and children without mercy or even how the united people marched on the streets to protect their state. Most of the headlines raised concerns about the “authoritative tendencies of Erdoğan and the purge against the opposition groups.” By this, they concealed the reality and the message that the Turkish citizens gave on the streets. They refused to see that all political parties represented in parliament declared their opposition to the coup attempt. Similarly, the Western media refused to expose the support against the coup attempt in the streets and the squares of Kurdish-populated cities.

Third, the Western media and many journalists warned and even threatened the Turkish authorities against punishing the putschists. It can be said that they do not want the Turkish government to take proper measures against the putschists. Moreover, the Western media stated their defiance against the state of emergency declared by the Turkish government, a legal right in the constitution, and also accepted by the European Human Rights Convention. Their Orientalist approach towards Turkey shows that they still consider Turkey to be a typical Middle Eastern or a third-world country.

An important example that needs to be mentioned is WikiLeaks. Soon after the coup attempt, WikiLeaks posted on its official Twitter account that the Turkish citizens must get ready to fight as it was to publish approximately 300,000 emails from the AK Party that would shed light on the coup attempt and those behind it. It was a shame for WikiLeaks and the media outlets that made news of this statement as it resulted in a huge sham. The emails that were made public were mainly spam email followed by some inconsequential emails. Afterwards, many Turkish citizens mocked WikiLeaks, while the international media remained silent, pointedly not updating their previous news in this regard.

The media outlets in the Middle East were/are more neutral towards the coup attempt. They were divided into two opposing categories. The first category welcomed the coup attempt in Turkey, which has been considered as the last Ikhwan-like regime in the region. This view was shared by the Egyptian media, which is under the control of the Sisi government, an administration established after a military coup in 2013. Similarly, the media outlets controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were also strongly pro-coup and anti-democracy. Those who are in favor of one-man rule and strictly authoritarian regimes consider Turkey to be one of the last remnants of the popular and democratic movements of the Middle East. The second view welcomed the crackdown of the coup attempt and declared its support of the Turkish people and their legitimate administration.

Lastly, the Turkish expats in different countries went out onto the streets to support the democratically elected Turkish government in its battle against the Gülenist Terror Organization that plotted the coup attempt. Many Turks gathered in front of Gülen’s mansion in Pennsylvania, requesting his extradition to Turkey. At a time when the Turkish people are intimidated by the West, the support of their expats was essential. However, some influential Turks living in the West and working for the Western think-tanks followed the policies of their host institutions, criticizing the Turkish government and President Erdoğan, but omitting the death toll and the outstanding resistance of the Turkish people.

To conclude, the domestic and international actors, in most cases, had opposite impacts on the events of July 15. While the domestic actors served as a catalyst for defending the unity of the state and the democratic values, the international actors mostly tended to obliterate the reality, especially through their biased media. For what it is worth, the Western antagonism did nothing but further unite the Turkish people. Today, the people are aware of their power and this has made them stronger than ever; a notion that the West has long taught but little supported.