Seldom has the visit of a head of state been as adversely analyzed by the media as the last visit by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to the U.N. General Assembly and conferences in New York. The conference was supposedly held to discuss climate change and its hazardous effects; however, in view of the situation in the Middle East, the most prominent topic was the situation in Syria and Iraq. Erdoğan accepted participating in debates at the Council of Foreign Relations, he gave a speech at the U.N. General Assembly, held bilateral talks with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and numerous other high level officials, talked with President Barack Obama and there was no surprise at all in any of his declarations.This is Erdoğan's style - he keeps almost the same terminology and rhetoric in every speech. He has been criticized from all possible angles, but the one point where his even most pernicious critics agree remains his direct style. He has been telling to the U.S. administration, U.N. General Assembly and various audiences where he was invited the same message: Turkey is doing all it can to help the people of Syria and Iraq, it is collaborating with its allies to stop the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), it is holding the war back by its mere force and capacity. Turkey expects no less from its allies - the whole burden of humanitarian aid and refugee problem cannot be left to Turkey and neighboring countries only. Erdoğan also asked the U.S. administration to help Turkey fight against its own anti-democratic structures by deporting Fethullah Gülen.Since the degradation of Turkey's ties with Israel, part of the international media coverage of Turkey has turned sour by coincidence. However, since the Dec. 17, 2013 corruption investigation and coup attempt, critics from some international media outlets have at least doubled in number and voice. This has created a black propaganda unheard of in Turkish political history. The immense humanitarian effort by Turkey has been almost hidden from the eyes of the international public thanks to this propagandistic strategy. However, facts are stubborn.Erdoğan has a direct style that is not encumbered by diplomatic finesse. He is capable of maintaining the same rhetoric at the U.N. General Assembly as well as in an election meeting of his own party. This is the property of leaders who have had steady democratic support on the part of their people for a long time. Charles de Gaulle was like that when he shouted in Canada during an official visit "Vive le Québec libre" (Long live free Quebec). Unlike de Gaulle, Erdoğan has always sided with NATO at important junctures. From the establishment in Turkey of the missile shield radar station to the last stance against ISIS, Turkey has sided without hesitation with democratic governments.Now this looks surprising to a number of analysts who were certain that a big crisis would occur between Turkey and the U.S. This has not at all been the case, but the problem is not there. Our allies have kept the nasty habit of putting political pressure on Turkey like in the good old times when Turkey was having short-lasting weak coalition governments, or, even worse, military regimes with very weak international respectability. This is not true anymore, especially in a globalized and much uncertain world where Turkey remains the only stability-exporting center in its region and deserves to be treated as such.There is also a large majority among the business community in Turkey together with the Turkish intelligentsia who take for granted any information published by Western media outlets. The anti-propaganda arguments against the government are often used in internal politic debate without being controlled. The issue is that Erdoğan and the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) take their legitimacy only from democratic elections and popular support. Wanting to fight them by accepting just any alliance in internal politics can push people in political movements to negate democracy. This is a real threat to be taken very seriously.