The late Armenian journalist and activist Hrant Dink’s “The Secret of Sabiha Hatun” article published in Agos in 2004 and subsequently covered in almost every major Turkish newspaper, vividly exemplifies how media can fuel or sustain hate speech and eventually transform it into a hate crime.
The story unfolded with Turkish national symbol Sabiha Gökçen, the world’s first female combat pilot, whose pictures, alongside Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, flood the streets of Istanbul at every possible corner. Born in 1913, she was adopted by the founder of the Turkish Republic, who elevated her status and placed her under the spotlight as a symbol of modernization and women’s empowerment in modern Turkey.
In his article, Dink shared an interview with Hripsime Sebilciyan, an Armenian originally from Gaziantep, who asserted that Gökçen was actually her aunt—an Armenian orphan adopted from an orphanage.
Turkey was deeply unsettled when Hürriyet, the country’s top-selling newspaper, highlighted the article, even sparking the government’s anger. Dink was subsequently convicted under Article 301 for “insulting Turkishness,” based on an alleged statement as if he wrote that “the blood of the Turks is poisonous.” The phrase was immediately echoed across all news outlets. While he expressed nothing disrespectful about Gökçen, the media continuously vilified him as a traitor and made him a target of hate speech in the media, leading to his notorious assassination in front of the Agos building three years later.
This was a turning point in the history of republican Turkey, which, besides unifying Dink’s supporters, Armenian or non-Armenian, brought hate speech into the spotlight for the first time. And no organization other than the Hrant Dink Foundation (HDF), established right after his assassination to “carry on Hrant’s dreams, Hrant’s struggle, Hrant’s language, and Hrant’s heart,” was more suitable to start a struggle against it.
In 2009, HDF launched the Media Watch on Hate Speech project, aiming to fight against polarization, discrimination, and racism against national, religious, and ethnic identities, and has successfully monitored Turkey’s media landscape for 15 years.
Data That Tells a Story
Years of monitoring and scanning have shown that 49% of national newspapers and 51% of local newspapers regularly spread hate speech in Turkey. Columns and news articles dominate the production of such content. The major detections of local newspapers have been found in Bursa and Konya.
Not surprisingly, one of the most striking online attacks against Dink also came from Bursa. In his “Why Was I Targeted” article for Agos, he wrote, “I should note here that one of these letters, posted from Bursa, gravely concerned me and seemed to be an imminent threat; even though I took the letter to the Şişli District Attorney, to date absolutely no action has been taken.”
Nayat Karaköse, HDF’s director of programs, believes that local newspapers, though consumed in smaller numbers, have a more significant impact on shaping people’s perceptions in a specific area or district. Therefore, monitoring these newspapers is of high importance, especially when until now they continue using hate speech more openly compared to mainstream national media.
Although over the years the target groups exposed to hate speech and discrimination in the media went beyond minorities and rose from 10 to 80 or more, Armenians, Christians, Greeks, Syrians, Greek Cypriots, and Jews have remained the “unchanging others” of Turkey and are still subjected to hate speech the most.
The report further states that depending on the political events, elections, or twists, the media landscape is flooded with hostile headlines, expressions, and depictions that generalize the events over entire communities. With headlines from “Jews attacked Gaza again” and “Syrians got used to committing crimes” to “Greek Atrocity” and “Traitor Armenians,” Turkish media spreads hate speech through exaggeration, distortion, symbolization, and direct insults.
Karaköse clarifies that regarding Armenians, the targets are mostly either diasporan Armenians or the Republic of Armenia itself compared to the local Armenian community of Turkey. “However, it still impacts Armenians living here. You’re still partially involved in that. It fuels perceptions, stereotypes, and prejudice against the Armenian minority here. If they’re seen as ‘the enemy,’ the locals become ‘the internal enemy,’ making you the often unwanted other in this country.”
By all means, Dink’s assassination will forever remain the most vivid reminder of the fatal consequences words can bring about. And HDF is committed to fighting against it through awareness-raising as long as it operates.
It holds true that Armenians are mainly targeted by Islamist conservative or nationalist-conservative publications. Still, when it comes to war discourse, all sorts of newspapers almost unanimously spread hate speech. In both Artsakh wars in 2016 and 2020, Armenians were depicted as separatists and unlawful people on Azerbaijani land, while Azeris as martyrs who fought for their homeland. These representations definitely fueled negative attitudes towards the local community.
Regarding the ongoing denial of the Genocide, even academics frequently participate in producing article series that depict Armenians as falsifiers of history and internal adversaries.
Pervasive Impact
The Media Watch on Hate Speech project goes beyond monitoring and scanning data. It plays a significant role in bringing the discourse of hate speech into the public agenda. As Karaköse explains, in Turkey, they don’t advocate for hate speech laws because such laws can severely threaten freedom of speech. “In countries like Turkey, these laws are often misused to the disadvantage of marginalized groups. Simple criticism of the government, for instance, can easily be labeled as hate speech. Consequently, HDF has instead focused on raising awareness and promoting structural change,” she explains.
In 2015, the Foundation established the ASULIS Discourse, Dialogue, and Democracy Lab, which developed a curriculum and a learning model on inclusive discourse to tackle hate speech through non-formal education.
The concept gradually gained prominence as a number of students from diverse backgrounds have continuously expressed interest in doing internships on this specific project. They help monitor and scan the media and become familiar with the nuances of the concept. Elif Erol, hate speech project coordinator, states that this knowledge also has a multiplying effect as it is shared by their parents, siblings, or social circles. University dissertations on the topic have also risen in number.
One recent positive development is the organization’s collaboration with Istanbul and district-based municipalities to train municipal staff, particularly those working with refugees. This training program has led to the education of 90,000 staff members in Istanbul and exemplifies the Foundation’s push for change through practical, solution-oriented strategies.
However, despite all these activities, hate speech in the media landscape, in fact, has risen. Yet, the dynamics have changed. Now, one may not stumble upon striking headlines in mainstream national newspapers as before. “And at least what I observe from Twitter, if somebody is using a hateful kind of definition or hate speech against certain groups, there will be some other people at least warning these individuals. In the past, this didn’t happen. At least there’s a kind of awareness, a consciousness about what hate speech is,” notes Karaköse.
As for how many of these discourses translate into discrimination, harassment, or real crimes in life, HDF does not possess data. However, Agos frequently publishes articles about victims to raise their voices.
By all means, Dink’s assassination will forever remain the most vivid reminder of the fatal consequences words can bring about. And HDF is committed to fighting against it through awareness-raising as long as it operates.
