Does the Media Reflect Objective Reality or Does It Represent the Ideology of Power?

Stuart Hall suggests in his article “Representation, Meaning and Language” that the media does not reflect social realities (we can also call it “true meaning”) as they already exist in the world, it re-identifies the reality. He also argues the meaning making process.

He claims that representation is an important part of the process of constructing meaning. Therefore, he gives a general definition of representation as “using language to say something meaningful about or to represent the world meaningfully, to other people and representation involves the use of language, signs and images.” (Hall, 2013: 1) In addition, he mentions three different approaches namely reflective, intentional and constructionist approach. He opposes the reflective approach since, as we mentioned above, language does not function like a mirror which just reflects the meaning (in this context realities) that already exists. As Saussure mentioned in the article, due to language’s social character, it is always changing in time and with the culture where it belongs to. If we look from the media side, the media does not always show the reality as it exists in our everyday lives. He claims that the intentional approach is also faulty. Because this approach focuses on the author or the speaker who creates the meaning, things would mean what the author intends they should mean. However, language cannot be private to us and authors cannot be the only source of meaning making process. If we want to communicate with each other meaningfully, language should be formed by some rules and shared codes in our culture. Constructionist approach is the one that we are going to discuss around the relation between representation and identity. According to this approach, meaning is constructed through language. We, social actors, construct the meaning by using concepts and sings because things do not mean by themselves (just as the opposite of mirroring function of language). (Hall, 2013: 10-11) This approach enables us to interrogate the reality since, the reality can be a fiction or it can be reproduced. So there is not a fix meaning.

In the light of this representation and identity theory, we are going to discuss the question: “Does the media reflect objective reality or does it represent the ideology of power?” with “hate speech” examples in Turkey.

Discourse is a social ideology which is coded through language. Discourse constitutes society and culture. Critical discourse analyst Van Dijk, points out that discourse is to be controlled or produced to ensure mental control in society. When we analyse from micro level, discourse exists in a subjective and psychologic context for example, “who said, who said with which intention, who said to who in which situation?”. According to Dijk, first thing to do to control discourse, is to control the context of discourse. The relations between journalists, who are the voice of social power and elites, and sources of the news, wording of the news, presentation of the news, titles of the news, quotations are components of discourse which constitute meaning and ideology in the news. (Dijk, 2008)

Ideologies are determined by language. The words, phrases, sentences, manner of speaking chosen by language users are essential factors in the discourse making process. (İnceoğlu and Çomak, 2009) In Turkey, news are like the products of sovereign discourse and they internalize the “we” description of sovereign ideology. News, present the “marginalized groups” as “monsters who spread potential risk and threat” by using swearword, insult, humiliation, negative and sarcastic expressions through discourse and ideology. Consequently, news produce prejudices against the “others” in society and provokes hate crimes. Moreover, media prompts the hate to the “others” especially in the periods of crises and conflict by re-producing nationalism and racism. Thus, media creates lynch and homicide atmosphere by pointing them as a target. As a natural result, this misrepresentation of the “others” makes people internalize this atmosphere legally. (İnceoğlu and Sözeri, 2012: 23-24)

In Turkey, media traditionally has a nationalist and marginalizing discourse. Therefore, from past to present, people approach with “hate” to all people who are not Turkish, to all beliefs which are not Muslim and Sunni, to all ideas that are against the ideology of power. In Turkey, being Armenian, Kurd, Jew, Assyrian, Greek, Roman, Alevi, Christian, socialist, communist, gay, lesbian etc. means being a target of “hate”. “Hate speech” is accepted normally in the newspaper headings, on television and internet news and also in social media. We perceive it normal because we belong to the same culture, we share the same conceptual map and we speak the same language. Hence, there are shared social representations that govern the collective actions of a group and form our every day life discourse. We can observe in schools, in course books, in teachers’ discourse where “hate speech” is reproduced every day. “Hate” is taught in schools and consolidated by media. (İnceoğlu and Çoban, 2014: 51-52) For this reason, it is understood that the media has been directing us since our childhood and the opinions which we suppose that are our own opinions, in fact are the opinions dictated by the media.

Nowadays, media is used as a socialisation tool in “consent production”. It means media is the most effective tool which makes people offer their thinking abilities voluntarily to sovereigns. Capitalist state monopolizes many apparatuses such as mass communication, economy and pressure tools. It uses these apparatuses to maintain its hegemony and to reproduce its ideology. In capitalist states, media is in the hands of capitalists and it does not reflect the realities. Media broadcasts as part of the state ideology and it is used by sovereigns to spread and reproduce this ideology. According to Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, media does not reflect the objective reality, the objectivity of media is just on the paper. There is a direct relationship between power and media. Media holdings are dependent to the power in terms of economy and policy. As a result, media serves the interest of the sovereign group.

For instance, in Turkey media consolidates nationalism and racism, then represents the “others” as a group that should be cowered. While the party in power cannot tolerate any dissenter opinion, people think that those opinions are deviant and they should be silenced. Because their beliefs, opinions and behaviours are transformed by mass media. In this context, basis of social violence is the sovereign, nationalist and racist ideology which directs people to “hate speech”. The movements of lynch in our country can be given as an example. Furthermore, the media shows these attacks as normal reactions and tries to construct a monotype society. This situation verifies Louis Althusser’s theory where he observes the media as one of the “ideological state apparatuses”. (İnceoğlu and Çoban, 2014: 52-66)

If we analyse some typical hate crime examples that racist discourse of media caused, the murder of Hrant Dink (19th January 2007) comes first. Hrant Dink was pointed as a target by media organs because of his opponent writings in Agos Newspaper. His murder indicated that he hadn’t known Hrant Dink before, he had just seen his writings and had found his photograph from the internet. We can understand from this example that he murdered Hrant Dink because of his Armenian identity although he didn’t bear any personal hostility against Dink. On 18th April 2007, another hate murder was committed in Malatya. Three Christians who publish Bible in “Zirve Yayınevi” were murdered. Murderers indicated that they were annoyed by their missionary activity. Likewise, they murdered these three Christians because of the prejudice against Christian identity. (Alğan, 2012) Maraş Massacre (1978) was aimed at Alevi and left-wing activists. Sivas Massacre (1993) was aimed again at Alevi people and intellectuals. Hotel Madımak was set on fire by Sunni Islamists. In 6-7 September Events, Istanbul Express Newspaper and radios announced “Our father Atatürk's house has been bombed”. This media provocation caused attacks against the Greeks, Armenians, Jews and their churches and synagogues. (Korkut, 2009) In Çorum Massacre (1980), about 57 Alevi and left-oriented people were killed by Nationalist Sunni Muslims. Likewise, there was provocation of the media. TRT announced that Alaaddin Mosque had been bombed. (Eral, 1995: 73-76)

Saussure distinguishes the form and the idea or concept into two elements such as the “signifier” and the “signified”. If we adapt them in hate speech context, the signifier is “LGBTI people” and the signified is “deviant, pervert and monster”. Or, the signifier can be “Kurdish people” and the signified is “terrorist group, PKK, betrayer, murderer”. This relation between the signifier and the signified is fixed by our cultural codes but it is not permanently fixed. Those concepts can change historically or from culture to culture. (Hall, 2013: 16-17)

This “hate”, reproduced by media, against the “others”, mobilised some non governmental organizations to change society by introducing new set of values. New associations and web sites were founded namely Sosyal Değişim, Kaos GL Association, SPoD, Açık Toplum Foundatiton and nefretsoylemi.org etc. For this reason, people who are exposed “hate speech” constitute “project identities”. Since, they build a new identity that redefines their position in society and they create social movements so that we can observe the transformation of overall social structure in our every day lives. (Castells, 2010: XXVI) For example, Hrant Dink Foundation has been carrying out a project called “Media Watch on Hate Speech” since 2009 in Turkey. This project aims to fight with racism, discrimination and intolerance. As well as, this study aims to draw attention to the racist and discriminatory language used in news articles, strengthen respect for human rights and differences, and raise awareness in entire society. (Çınar, 2013: 15-16)

In all hate crime examples, this “hate” against the “others” is represented by the discourse of sovereign sided media. The basis of “hate speech” consists of prejudices, racism, xenophobia, discrimination, cultural identities, sexism, homophobia etc. In Turkey, everybody who are not Turkish, Sunni Muslim and heterosexual, are marginalized and becoming a target of “hate speech”. In this context, media has an important power which can increase this hate and transform it to a crime. Since the discourse of news is intolerant, negative and mostly provocative.

In conclusion, as we mentioned above, when media, as being an apparatuses of sovereign ideology, reproduces nationalism and racism, it also reproduces social anger and hate. As a result, media does not reflect the objective reality, it imposes society the fictional reality of power.

---

Bibliography

Alğan, Cengiz. Nefret Suçlarıyla Mücadelede Sivil Toplum Örgütlerinin Rolü. Der.Yasemin İnceoğlu and Savaş Çoban. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları, 2012. Print.

Castells, Manuel. Preface to the 2010 Edition of The Power of Identity. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.

Çınar, Mahmut. Medya ve Nefret Söylemi: Kavramlar Mecralar Tartışmalar”. İstanbul: Hrant Dink Vakfı Yayınları, 2013. Print.

Eral, Sadık. Çaldıran'dan Çorum'a Anadolu'da Alevi Katliamları. Ant Yayınları, 1995. Print.

Hall, Stuart. “The Work of Representation”, 2013.

İnceoğlu, Yasemin and Ceren Sözeri. Nefret Suçlarında Medyanın Sorumluluğu: “Ya sev ya terk et ya da …” Der. Yasemin İnceoğlu. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları, 2012. Print.

İnceoğlu, Yasemin and Nebahat Çomak. Metin Çözümlemeleri, İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları, 2009. Print.

İnceoğlu, Yasemin and Savaş Çoban. Azınlıklar, Ötekiler ve Medya. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları, 2014. Print.

Korkut, Tolga. “What happened on 6-7 September?”, Bianet.org. 2009.Web. 12 October 2016.

Van Dijk, Teun. Discourse and Power: Contributions to Critical Discourse Studies. Houndsmills: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008. Print.