This article, from the October 22, 2007 Los Angeles Times, titled, “Turkey Threatens Incursion after Kurds Kill 12 Troops”.
The information that appears in the title, “12 troops killed by Kurds”, is provided by the Turkish military, the article later states. Wording the title in this manner fosters an impression that the statement is an established fact without giving the readership consideration of the source. This gives the Turkish military the biggest privilege of propagating at readers in the most read line of the article. If the Times had alluded to the fact that the information was provided by the Turkish Military within the title it would allow the readership an opportunity to decide for them selves how to feel about it.
The cause of the bias in this article is clear once one takes a look at the source of the information. All but two of the first twelve paragraphs contain either a Turkish official or military source; none of them contain a PKK or Kurdish source. There are eighteen citations in this article; thirteen of which are Turkish officials, military, or news media. Most of the remaining five citations are also governmental sources, from Iraq and the US, which means that sixteen out of eighteen citations are government sources. The heavy reliance on governmental sources frames every point in the first half of the article towards a more sympathetic view of that government's objectives. When Turkish and US officials are cited they “say”, “ask” or “remind”. But when a PKK spokesperson is cited he “claims” and even in the same paragraph the “claim” is rebottled with another Turkish official “saying” something. This subtle difference suggests more suspicion with the PKK sources than with the Turkish or US ones. Why should the readers assume a less critical standpoint with Turkish or US citations than with the ones from the PKK?
The article also offers nothing as far as a historical perspective of the conflict between the Turkish government and the Kurds. How is it possible to understand any current events without some historical gauge? Explaining that there exists large inequities between the Turkish and Kurdish populations in Turkey would help people understand the grievance that the Kurds have with the Turkish government. For example, it is illegal to speak Kurdish, to celebrate or even acknowledge Kurdish culture and customs in Turkey. Many locally elected officials in Turkey have been removed from power because of this, even when the local population is overwhelmingly Kurdish. It is even illegal to give a child a Kurdish name. Mentioning these inconvenient truths might also help people understand how serious the Turkish officials are when they say that they would “pay any price” to protect their citizens, but not even hint towards equal rights, public apology (for past abuses), or political recognition of the Kurdish Turks. This bias goes beyond merely suggestion. This shows that the Times would rather its readers bolster attitudes towards the conflict that are not just biased, but are out of pure ignorance than, offer some explanation as to why there is bitterness and resistance among the Kurds in the region.
The article also states, pointy, that, “the attacks, by the PKK, intensified pressure on the Turkish government to move against the rebels”. This comment is another example of the Times drawing conclusions for their readers. Shouldn’t the reader be left to decide if the attack puts pressure on the Turkish government? This comment is also not followed by any sort of explanation as to why the Turkish government would be pressured. And pressured by whom? The population, the business, its neighbors, its population?
Later the article states, “By threatening to invade, Turkey is hoping to force the U.S., especially, to crack down on the Kurdish rebels”. If Turkish officials made this statement then, why isn’t it quoted? By not putting a statement in quotation marks the Times is simply adopting what officials say as if it is undisputable fact. If the officials did not state this, then either the Times writers have special powers that allow them to know what foreign government officials are hoping, or they are again drawing conclusions for their readers. Assuming the latter, since the statement is not in quotes and I doubt the Times writers have special powers, why would it be important for the writers to convey what they think the Turkish government’s hopes are? Is this news? Or are the Times writers simply not letting their readers connect the dots on their own?
Finally the most glaring aspect of this article is its failure to warn the readers of any of the humanitarian consequences of a military invasion. When articles mostly consist of governmental citations, especially from the government that is planning the invasion, the information is most likely not going to indicate the horror and misery of its policies. This view, I believe, is the most vital because without knowing the consequences of an action how can you accurately asses it. A story like this is crucial because Turkey is a long time ally of The United States and the public attitudes of either nation can have a great impact on whether Turkey invades, and causes injury, death, and destruction for tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of people.
