In 2024, Turkey is ranked 158th place in the World Press Freedom Index. Journalists suffer from discriminatory practices, online censorship, and arbitrary lawsuits. The strained economic situation is adding additional hardship, especially on independent media houses. How do you as an Armenian journalist working for the Turkish-Armenian independent newspaper Agos experience the current state of press and media freedom? How freely can you write about topics of importance for the Armenian community, which suffers from discrimination, also from a critical perspective?
It is an indisputable fact that Turkey is one of the worst countries in the world in terms of press freedom, in line with the data you have shared. However, Agos can now freely cover taboo subjects and red lines in its pages. I say ‘now’ because it has cost us a great deal to reach this point: Hrant Dink, the founder and former editor-in-chief of Agos, was shot in the back and killed in front of the newspaper building at noon on January 19, 2007. Hrant Dink was not the first journalist to be murdered in Turkey. Unfortunately, the political situation in Turkey shows that he will not be the last either. However, the murder of Hrant Dink provoked a reaction that the Turkish state never expected. This reaction came not from Armenians, but from Turks and Kurds. A crowd of hundreds of thousands of people marched on the evening of the day Dink was killed and blocked kilometres of roads, demanding the arrest of the perpetrator of the murder.
The cost of being able to speak freely about the Armenian Genocide was undoubtedly enormous. After all, Agos was a newspaper that was published as the voice of the Armenian community in Turkey, which at that time numbered 70 to 80 thousand people. Since then, its mission has changed a little and it has started to attract the attention of the whole of Turkey. With its news, interviews and publications, Agos used to be considered a reference in Turkey on the Armenian Genocide. However, after the 100th anniversary of the genocide, it was no longer on Turkey’s news agenda. In spite of all this, Agos’ harsh reports criticising the state have not been sanctioned by the state, as a huge price has already been paid and the Dink murder case has not been properly tried. Agos is thus able to continue writing what the state does not like.
Today, especially the Kurdish media is subjected to pressure and threats. Many Kurdish journalists are in prison. This is because the state sees Kurds as a bigger threat than Armenians as the population of Armenians today is 50 thousand, whereas Kurds are said to number more than 10 million. We can say that Agos publishes more freely. But this does not mean that there is freedom of the press in Turkey. We can see this in the pressure and threats against the Kurdish media.
How does the Armenian media landscape differ from the Turkish public media and what role does Agos play in the media landscape? Do Armenian media houses experience special forms of repression as representatives of a marginalised group? What is the importance of establishing independent Armenian media houses in Turkey?
There are currently three Armenian newspapers and a television channel in Turkey. Two of these three newspapers are published only in Armenian, while Agos is published in both Armenian and Turkish. The TV channel was founded by an Armenian journalist known to be close to the state, and it generally broadcasts the national and world agenda in mainstream language, with culture and arts content in the remaining sections. The other Armenian-language newspapers often use the state’s language, and even when they oppose the state, they do so in a very low-key tone, in a way that does not disturb anyone.
Since its foundation, Agos has pursued a completely different policy from these three media organisations. It is the only Armenian media organisation that publishes about the Armenian Genocide, the problems faced by Armenians and all other ethnic/religious/gender minority groups in Turkey, and the oppression they face without any concerns. So much that this is sometimes a problem even among Armenians. When Agos publishes a news item about the Kurds, ridiculous questions such as ‘Did the Kurds buy Agos?’ can be asked. As if reporting on and criticising the injustice suffered by Kurds makes us Kurds…
As I have just mentioned, the other three media organisations face almost no threats or pressure because they have a policy close to the state. But Agos, again as I mentioned earlier, is a newspaper that has paid a price, perhaps the biggest price of all. Therefore, I cannot say that Armenian media organisations in general were subjected to pressure, but Agos individually certainly was. Dink’s murder made Agos a bit ‘untouchable’.
You already mentioned the assassination of Agos’ co-founder and chief editor Hrant Dink. Advocating for Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, Dink was several times prosecuted for “denigrating Turkishness” under the widely criticised article 301. His murder sparked international outrage. What has changed, or not, since then? What consequences did the murder have on the public opinion on Armenian rights and freedom of expression? Did an improvement in the protection of (Armenian) journalists follow?
After Dink’s murder, there were people who were tried under Article 301. Since then, both a lot has changed and nothing has changed. Nothing has changed, because just these days, Açık Radyo, a radio organisation known for its alternative broadcasts, was first banned from broadcasting and finally had its licence cancelled for not ‘correcting’ the ‘Armenian Genocide’ remarks made by a commentator who was a guest on one of the radio’s programmes. Although the Court of Cassation ruled for the cancellation of the decision, this was enough of a threat for the radio station to watch its words from now on. Yes, they may not touch Agos anymore, and we do not have to practise any self-censorship, but this does not mean that all opposition publications in the country act with the same confidence and ease. The Kurdish media and Kurdish journalists I have just mentioned are the most concrete examples of this.
Again, as I have just mentioned, the murder of Hrant Dink provoked a reaction that the state did not expect. There was not only a domestic reaction, but there was also an international reaction. This international reaction led Turkey to be extra sensitive towards all non-Muslim minorities, especially Armenians, and to apply positive discrimination. Of course, again, only to a certain extent. However, I must remind you that no non-Muslim minority or Kurd in Turkey demands positive discrimination, they only want to have equal rights with Turks.
Dink’s murder caused the Armenian Genocide issue to be spoken about more loudly. Because Hrant Dink had already been targeted and killed for constantly keeping this issue on the agenda. However, as I have repeated, this murder did not go as planned by the state and the society reacted very strongly. Today, not only Armenians but also Turks can speak loudly about the genocide. Hrant Dink ensured that even though the genocide has not yet been recognised norconfronted, it is at least a subject that can be talked about.
In the years 1915-1916, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians and Assyrians were massacred by the Ottoman authorities. Several countries have recognised this mass murder as genocide whereas Turkey refuses to this day. What does the public debate about Armenian genocide looks like today and which role does the mainstream media play in that discourse? How do Armenian-Turkish media manage to publish counter-narratives?
Genocide is still the biggest taboo in Turkey. There are Turks and Kurds who individually recognise the genocide, but unfortunately it is still not possible to say the same for any political party. The voice that was much louder in 2015, on the 100th anniversary of the genocide, has been replaced by a great silence today. So much so that, in recent years, even the DEM Party (the Kurdish party), which is the political party that most Armenians feel closest to, refrains from using the word ‘genocide’ in its statement issued on 24 April, which is accepted as the date of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. Although this saddens me as a voter, I understand the reason behind it, but I do not agree with it. Because I don’t think things will get better in Turkey without confronting 1915. In order to focus on its future, a country must first confront its past fairly and without leaving any question marks. Turkey is far away from this today.
Publishing critical news challenging regime loyal narratives remains relevant until today, for example when reporting about the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War which took place in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding occupied territories in 2020. It lasted for 44 days and resulted in displacement of inhabitants and dissolvement of the Armenian enclave. During the armed conflict Turkey provided military support to Azerbaijan. How did the war affect Armenian journalists and the Armenian community in Turkey? How is reporting possible if the truth is so much under attack?
Azerbaijan’s attack on Karabakh in 2020 was the turning point in the complete severing of my ties with Turkey. My former good or hopeful feelings about Turkey were completely replaced by pessimism. After that date, I minimised my contact with my Turkish friends, with whom I felt very close, and cut off direct communication with many of them. The war was taking place in Karabakh, and of course what we experienced in Turkey was nothing compared to it. However, in those days (later, when I talked to my friends, I found out that they had similar feelings), I could not go out on the streets or even go to the market. I lived in a neighbourhood where there were many Armenians. Despite this, I was uneasy about going out on the streets because the public in Turkey can be manipulated very easily with huge lies by the mainstream and pro-government media, blaming the Armenians, and this was the case in that period. I was sure that none of the people I met on the street wanted me in the country, including my neighbours who knew I was Armenian. Atatürk’s saying “Turkey belongs to the Turks” is very famous. For the first time in those days I felt this saying in a real sense. Turkey was Turkish and no one other than Turks were welcome there. Especially Armenians, in those days…
The media was, of course, in a pro-Azerbaijan and therefore pro-Turkey stance. Unfortunately, it also includes even alternative websites. During that period, only one to two websites other than Agos did not cover the events in a one-sided manner. I can give the following as the simplest example: While all Turkish media wrote that the war started with Armenia’s attacks, when the 44-day war ended, Azerbaijani Prime Minister Ilham Aliyev admitted that they had started the war. Nevertheless, the Turkish media ignored this confession and even today claims that the Armenian side started the war.
You’re a journalist in the field of culture and arts. What is the state of affairs of Armenian arts and culture in Turkey? Can culture and arts and the reporting about it contribute to higher visibility and empowerment of Armenians?
Arts and culture has been an area in which Armenians have been prominent in Turkey throughout history. It was Armenians who brought theatre to the country in Ottoman times. Armenians have always played an important role in Turkish cinema and music. However, in doing so, many of them had to hide their identity. For example, Onno Tunçboyacıyan, one of the most important arrangers of Turkish pop music, used the name ‘Onno Tunç’, and hid the suffix ‘yan’ because it would have revealed his Armenianness.
Since they used to have a larger population in the past, Armenians were more visible in the field of culture and arts. However, discrimination existed in the past as well. We can exemplify this as follows: Vahakn Nigoğosyan was an instrument maker and the first Stradivarius repairman in Turkey. As we learnt from his narrations , when he requested the opening of an instrument-making department at the Istanbul State Conservatory, his request was rejected solely on the grounds that he was Armenian. Today, it may not be possible to speak of such a great discrimination, but the extent to which Armenians can produce ‘reasonable’ or ‘objective’ work in the field of culture and arts is still controlled.
Against this backdrop it must be exhausting to keep reporting. What does solidarity and support among Armenian people and journalists look like?
Agos is currently experiencing the greatest difficulty due to the fact that it is a printed publication. This is because, as in the rest of the world, the number of newspaper readers in Turkey has dwindled considerably and continues to do so day by day. At the same time, however, almost every Armenian family buys Agos and two other Armenian-language daily newspapers and continues to show solidarity with them. This is an example of solidarity that cannot be matched in mainstream newspapers. However, I must also point out that in today’s economic conditions, the future of any newspaper that produces content focussed on such a small community is not guaranteed.
