Hürriyet's manipulative article, which was ironically released at a time when Turkey is still trying to overcome the trauma of the July 15 coup attempt and going to a referendum soon, is a poor copy of the daily’s anti-democratic past
Daily Hürriyet published an article written by Hande Fırat over the weekend, at a time when Turkey has been trying its best to overcome the trauma caused by the July 15 military coup attempt just several months ago. It came only a few days before the 20th anniversary of the Feb. 28, 1997 "postmodern coup" that disenfranchised tens of thousands of female university students just because they wore a headscarf and traumatized an entire generation. The article's headline can be roughly translated as "[Military] Headquarter is disturbed," with the cause of disturbance identified as the recent lifting of the headscarf ban on officers. Among the topic mentioned in the article are the condolence call to the editor-in-chief of a conservative newspaper, Chief of General Staff Gen. Hulusi Akar's umrah visit, Akar's meeting with U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford and the medal presented to Akar by Gen. Raymond Odierno in 2015.
Despite the bloody coup attempt that caused the deaths of hundreds of civilians, the Turkish nation, which still feels a deep emotional attachment toward its military, found it in its heart to forgive those soldiers who surrendered on July 15 after being tricked into joining the putsch. It did its utmost to repair the damage caused to the military by the coup plotters and those millions who attended the Yenikapı Democracy Rally weeks after the coup honored Akar and, with him the military, wholeheartedly.
In this environment, at a time when the nation is trying to heal its wounds, such an article naturally caused huge anger. There is also the fact that this is not the first time the media has been used to convey an evident threat directed at the government. Turkey's recent history echoes with instances where the willing media organs become the tools of the powers that coerce the elected government to backtrack on its policies. In 2003, an article by daily Cumhuriyet titled, "Young officers are disturbed," caused significant political tension.
Another reason why the story created such anger is the timing, coming as it did on the 20th anniversary of the so called post-modern coup of 1997, essentially trying to manipulate society. Let there be no doubt that the article's focus was to manipulate, as its central message was that the gradual lifting of the headscarf ban was causing disturbance.
The Feb. 28, 1997, coup was essentially founded on imposing the headscarf ban and Hürriyet was especially vocal in its support for the measures taken. The article linked several unrelated news stories that occurred over several years to argue that the military is opposed to the lifting of the headscarf ban. The same newspaper, when Parliament voted to lift the headscarf ban at universities, had made its opposition clear with the headline on its front page: "411 hands rise to chaos." In the past two decades, whenever a development occurred to disenfranchise women wearing headscarves, Hürriyet stood with the anti-democratic forces that wanted to impose bans opposing any attempt to alleviate their misery.
The newspaper has always claimed that it is trying to convey the disturbance among the officers in an effort to protect the strength of the military. However, the military airing its opinions for or against issues directly under the purview of politics is inherently anti-democratic and willingly becoming a conduit to such outbursts means taking the side of anti-democratic forces in the country. The article, which fails to clearly identify its sources, is trying to manipulate the political agenda. It hardly qualifies as a news story. It is just a compilation of the reporter's own opinions and antipathies, expressed through a not-so-hidden menace.
Hürriyet tried to argue that the reason why it published such an article was because it was extremely sensitive toward any disturbance within the military while the reporter claimed that those who criticized it had simply not read the half-a-page article properly.
On Monday, the public fury against Hürriyet was the top story in several newspapers, Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım met with Akar to discuss the matter and a preliminary investigation was launched. However, Hürriyet preferred not to publish a single line of follow-up on the story this week .
Another matter that shocked many was the identity of the reporter. Hande Fırat was the television presenter on the night of July 15 who spoke with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan via FaceTime. Her journalistic achievement on the night, ensuring President Erdoğan's call to resist the coup reached the entire nation, made her a hero overnight. Media organs seen as political polar opposites had united in defense of democracy. However, many were surprised to see her name attached to the article.
It is no surprise that such an article was published at a time when the previously dominant elite are absolutely against the constitutional changes that will pave the way for the introduction of a presidential system. The Doğan Group, owner of Hürriyet, has always been the voice of the dominant anti-democratic elite, trying to impede each and every measure it perceives as against its interests.
However, the Doğan Group and the anti-democratic forces it supports are swimming against the current. The people as a whole, irrespective of their political, religious and ethnic persuasions, are aware that a junta will lead to chaos and disintegration. The nation knows it cannot afford to backtrack on its hard-earned rights and economic benefits of democracy.
This is the simple reason why the Hürriyet article caused such a public backlash. The nation is furious over attacks on democracy and the military being exploited to manipulate the political process.