Focus Human Rights

Nr. 04 / November 2014

One Hundred Years of Hate Speech

Hrant Dink Foundation Media Watch on Hate Speech Project-Team

In 2009, the HRANT DINK FOUNDATION (HDF) initiated the MEDIA WATCH ON HATE SPEECH in order to combat racism, discrimination and intolerance in Turkey. By working for a just media
reporting, the acknowledgment of the responsibility of civil society is intended. In this
sense, the HDF publishes periodical reports with the main objective to draw attention to
racist and discriminatory language used in news articles and columns. Every report of MEDIA
WATCH ON HATE SPEECH reflects how the political agenda of the day shapes the severity of
hate speech content in Turkish media. The recent report addressed the considerable increase
in the number of items consisting of hate speech compared to previous periods. Furthermore, an emphasis is placed on the April 24th Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day.
The use of biased, prejudiced and discriminatory
language in the media is a common phenomenon
in Turkey. This language becomes an instrument
to entrench stereotypes and to increase hostility
and discrimination in the society. The media is
one of the most powerful ideological apparatuses in all the societies. However, the majority of
the journalists and media organs do not abide by
the rules of universal media ethics. Some of
them target specific groups and individuals.
Thus, minorities become silent. By the means of
stigmatizing and marginalizing, such media organs incite hate crimes by reproducing hatred
and discriminatory discourses. At the core of
hate speech lie prejudices, racism, xenophobia,
discrimination, sexism and homophobia. It is
reinforced by ethnocentrism, chauvinism, and
discrimination and hostility against minorities,
migrants and people of immigrant origin.1

The Recommendation of the Council of Europe, declared

in 1997, defines hate speech as follows: Hate speech, as

The project MEDIA WATCH ON HATE SPEECH was

initiated by the HRANT DINK FOUNDATION (HDF) in
2009 with the aim of combatting racism, discrimination and intolerance in Turkey. Acknowledging the importance of civilian monitoring of
the media, it aims to draw attention to the racist
and discriminatory language used in news articles and columns, and thereby, to raise awareness about human rights in press and encourage
the media institutions to stop engaging in hate
speech.
MEDIA WATCH ON HATE SPEECH monitors the national and local press; identifies and analyses
news items and opinion columns that produce
discriminatory and marginalizing discourses; and
defined by the Council of Europe, covers all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote and justify racial
hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, or other forms of hatred
based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by
aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination
and hostility against minorities, migrants, and people of
immigrant origin.

Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom | Focus Human Rights

|2

One Hundred Years of Hate Speech No. 4 / November 2014

bring them to public attention through periodical reports and the website of the project,
www.nefretsoylemi.org. The reports are composed of two different sections since 2013: The
first focusing on hate speech directed towards
ethnic and religious identities along with content targeting LGBTI individuals and women; and
the second handling a specific subject around
which hate speech and other forms of discriminatory discourse has been intensely produced, in
a given period.
The first section of the last report, covering the
period January-April 2014 and written by Dr. dil
Engindeniz, from Galatasaray University Faculty
of Communication, points at a considerable increase in the number of items consisting hate
speech, in comparison to the previous periods
and years. As was the case in previous periods,
Armenians, Jews and Christians were targeted
the most. In this period, Greeks and Kurds followed, respectively.
Each year, the number of items containing hate
speech between January and April outnumbers
the data collected in other periods of the same
year. MEDIA WATCH ON HATE SPEECH interprets this
significant difference in relation to the events
that falls into the first four months of each year,
such as the Armenian Christmas Day on the 6th
of January. Not only Christmas but also the April
24th Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day and
Khojaly massacre commemorations2 becomes
issues around which many media institutions
generate hate speech, specifically towards nonMuslim societies in this period.
The MEDIA WATCH ON HATE SPEECH team has chosen the April 24th Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day as the subject of the second section,
under the title of Discriminatory Discourse in
Print Media: The Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day - One Year Left to the 100th Commemoration. The aim of these files is to make a
detailed discourse analysis of openly or tacitly
promoted discrimination and marginalization of
certain groups.
For this specific file on the Armenian Genocide
Remembrance Day, written by Derya Frat and
Bar annan, from Association for Sociology of
Memory and Culture (BELLEK VE KLTR SOSYOLOJISI
2

Khojaly massacre was the killing of at least 161 ethnic

Azerbaijani civilians from the town of Khojaly on 25-26
February 1992 by Armenian forces during the NagornoKarabakh War.

ALIMALARI DERNEI), all the news articles and

columns published between April 22-26, 2014 in
newspapers Aydnlk, Birgn, Habertrk, Hrriyet, Radikal, Sabah, Trkiye and Zaman were
monitored and analyzed. These newspapers are
selected according to their characteristics of
reaching different political medium and their
different representation criteria. In order to develop a comparative understanding of how the
Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day was covered by the press from 2007 onwards, an archival research was pursued as well. The first pages
of the above listed newspapers were scrutinized.
Hereby, it is confirmed that the number of items
on the April 24 Remembrance Day, which appeared between January and April 2014, has
outnumbered the total number of items appeared in press between 2007 and 2013. It can
be argued that, since Recep Tayyip Erdoan, who
was the PM at the time, expressed his condolences on the 99th commemoration of the Genocide, the April 24 commemoration was considered more newsworthy than it was in previous
years by these newspapers.

Demonstration on the stiklal Caddesi (Istanbul) on April

24, 2014 remembering the begin of the deportation of
Istanbuls Armenian intellectuals exactly 99 years before.
This triggered the Armenian Genocide oft he Ottoman
Empire.
Photo: Berge Arabian.

For instance, during the past seven years, the

total number of news items on the April 24
commemorations that appeared in the above
listed newspapers was only 35. In April 2014,
this number was 46, outnumbering the total
number of the previous seven years. Even though
Habertrk is published since 2009 and Aydnlk is
published since 2011, the findings of the report
show that this is indeed a serious increase. This
increase stems mainly from the news items and
opinion articles published after the PM Erdoans
written statement of condolence for the 99th
commemoration of the Genocide, in April 2014.

Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom | Focus Human Rights

|2

|3

One Hundred Years of Hate Speech No. 4 / November 2014

The word Erdoan was articulated almost as

many times as the word Genocide was, between April 22nd and 26th; whereas, between
2007 and 2013, the words Genocide and
Erdoan appeared very rarely. During these
seven years, the word Armenian was preferred
more commonly, in the news about the April 24
commemoration. As a result, the word/ designation of Genocide entered into the public discourse on the Armenian Genocide but it was
overshadowed by Erdoans statement of condolences, and the following praises and negative criticisms he received. 53% of the visuals,
used in the news articles about the Armenian
Genocide Remembrance Day, were identified as
being solely on Erdoans condolences.
Since the April 24 commemoration day coincided
with the April 23 National Sovereignty and Childrens Day, Erdoan was mostly represented as a
parental figure in the news items on his statement of condolences. For example, in a news
article Erdoans statement on the April 24 was
given with a picture of him caressing a child.
Therefore, his condolences were represented as a
gesture of care, granted to Armenians from the
father of the nation. As used in many cases
about disadvantaged groups, childification of
Armenians was a widely used strategy to undermine the political and historical debates about
the Genocide. Thus, the April 24 commemoration
has been instrumentalized in most cases, in order to (re)construct public perceptions on the
Armenian Genocide as it is something apolitical, or purely a matter mourning and condolences.

Religious Minorities in Istanbul integral part since

hundreds of years, but now marginalized and childified.

Different actors instrumentalized the Armenian

Genocide Remembrance Day for different purposes. There were several approaches such as
blaming the Genocide entirely on Kemalism and
the Committee of Union and Progress, propagandizing the Justice and Development government through Erdoans condolences to the
Genocide, or representing Armenians as traitors. The references given in the news items and
articles on the April 24 commemoration hold a
great deal of importance, to determine the diverse positions taken by actors. It is observed
that mainly state officials and politicians shape
the dynamics of the discursive sphere.
Needless to say, the naming of social traumas,
perpetrators and victims, that shape collective
memories of societies, has a crucial value for
justice and peace. However, the 1915 incident
and so-called genocide are the most commonly
used expressions about the Armenian Genocide
within these four days. In 18.3% of the news
items, any naming of the Genocide was avoided
on purpose, and in 6.8%, the naming of the
word genocide was used.
It is observed that 33% of the victims and 80%
of the perpetrators who were subjects in the
news items had not been named as such. Most
of the newspapers treat the Armenian Genocide
as a natural catastrophe for which nobody can
be held responsible. This situation itself shows
how the denial of the Genocide is a commonlyheld position in press.

Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom | Focus Human Rights

|3

|4

One Hundred Years of Hate Speech No. 4 / November 2014

Among the 219 news items that were analysed

within the scope of this research, 80 were articulating demands such as coming to terms
with the past, justice and peace, apology,
and public recognition of the Genocide by the
state. The only newspaper that completely denies the Genocide was Aydnlk, a highly ultranationalist and pro-secularism.
Almost all of the above listed newspapers published a collage of the news items on the April
24 commemoration appeared in other newspapers. This reflects how the actors of the print
media position themselves according to each
other, and how they actively take part in molding public opinion on the issue.
Media actors position themselves both politically
and in terms of the hate speech content they
produce, according to each other. Every report of
MEDIA WATCH ON HATE SPEECH reflects how the
political agenda of the day shapes the severity of
hate speech content in the media. Therefore,
both media actors and politicians bear tremendous responsibility in a media that respects hu-

man rights and avoid hate speech not to promote discrimination and hate crimes against
disadvantaged groups.
MEDIA WATCH ON HATE SPEECH team works for a
just media, acknowledging the responsibility of
civil society. Interestingly, even the most extremist newspapers follow their reports. So far, it
could be observed the project has made an important contribution to the recent decrease in
hate speech content published in mainstream
newspapers. Additionally, HDF has prepared a
syllabus on hate speech in media for journalism
and communication students and lecturers,
which thus far, the Human Rights Activists have
presented in several universities in Istanbul,
Eskiehir, Antalya, and Gaziantep. The HDF
members are driven by the belief that the actors
who have a role in the media, or have the power
to influence it, contribute in transforming the
media to end hate speech, social discrimination
and exclusion, and hate crimes.

Since 2009, the Istanbul Office of Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty supports HRANT DINK
FOUNDATION (HDF), one of the most prominent Human Rights Organisations of Turkey. Core element of this cooperation is the Hate Speech monitoring of Turkish media done by HDF. The project has been successfully introduced to scholars and students at various Turkish universities, in
and outside of Istanbul. Three times a year, HDFs monitoring report on hate speech is published.
Annually, an international conference covers problems of Hate Speech in Turkish and international media. Although improvements have been documented, the issue of Hate Speech still
remains highly topical in the Turkish political arena. Thus, the monitoring process is an important
contribution in order to create more sensitivity for human rights violations with regard to religious, ethnic and social minorities.

Imprint
Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom
International Politics
Asia and Human Rights Department
Karl-Marx-Strae 2
D-14482 Potsdam Germany
humanrights@freiheit.org
www.freiheit.org

Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom | Focus Human Rights

|4