Just came across 'The Largest Minority' and its Action Alert post asking for fair coverage by the Los Angeles Times.
The post talks about the inappropriate and untimely, as well as the unfair editorial by The Los Angeles Times dated January 24, 2007 titled 'Armenia Haunts Turkey Again' that starts off by asking justifiably so, "Is there a curse hanging over Turkey?"
The 'Action Alert' post by no means is from a 'denialist' of Genocide point of view. According to their own admission, it is merely an outlet for "readers who care about honest and fair coverage in the LA Times, and the media in general," who may want to send "an email to the editorial staff requesting that their content meet the standards of legitimacy that other prominent newspapers in the United States (and the world) require." Oh boy!!!
Before we applaud the post's overall intent, and rush to criticize the LA Times for its 'dishonor,' I must warn the 'genocide-terminology-sensitive' Turks however, the suggested sample letter to the editor you will read below also proclaims, "many have adopted policies to officially refer to the events of 1915-1923 as Genocide, not an alleged or so-called Genocide. Why hasn't the Los Angeles Times adopted this policy?" So beware of the good, the bad, and the ugly when picking and choosing how to criticize or whether to criticize the whole or the sum of all its parts.
While I may agree with the aforementioned post's ridicule of the untimely and unfair assessment of Turkey by The Los Angeles Times, I do not agree with the criticization of The Los Angeles Times' use of the 'alleged or so called Genocide' terminology when describing events that the writer of the post confuses with the "recent unity displayed on the streets of Istanbul," as well as his delusion over the abolishing of article 301 leading to a mass acceptance of any such terminology over any chance for a debate or discussion that the same defenders of article 301's dismissal 'wish' for, given the real intent of easing restrictions is the very same ability to debate such a serious consideration.
I would recommend that all comments, by those defending or offended, should be directed to 'The Largest Minority!'
Some excerpts:
"In the midst of the massive international coverage of these events, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial entitled "Armenia Haunts the Turks Again" by Hugh Pope. In this editorial, as is made clear from its title, Pope actually paints the Republic of Turkey as victim of circumstance: A hapless nation that, despite their good intentions, have found themselves beset on all sides by ill-informed European nations and raving diasporan Armenians.""This editorial is wholly naïve and particularly dangerous in light of the recent unity . . . such unity had not been seen for over 90 years . . . displayed on the streets of Istanbul. The casual reader might be inclined to identify the piece as an alternate viewpoint simply providing a different perspective."
"The reason for my outrage is not that there are people in this world that advocate a denialist view, but that the Los Angeles Times would give a voice to this utter fallacy. Once again, such ignorance has been afforded the legitimacy that readers perceive as a requirement to be published in the LA Times. An editorial like Pope's would have never been run in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, Le Monde, or any other distinguished news outlet that prides itself on quality international coverage."
"The outrage of Armenians and non-Armenians alike shouldn't be constrained only to the nature of their coverage of Armenian Issues. The Los Angeles Times has inappropriately legitimated what is internationally considered to be outside the realm of relevant public discourse. We must therefore question the quality of all reporting coming from the LA Times. If they are so unaware of the quality of what they publish, how can we rely on them for accurate news? This isn't the first time the LA Times has published an absurd editorial."
"In this light, I am asking people who care about the integrity of the Los Angeles Times, and editorial accountability in general, to join us in demanding an apology from their editorial staff for making a distastefully poor decision to publish Hugh Pope's editorial. We ask that they be more diligent in ensuring what they publish is congruent with legitimate public discourse."
"Please send your email to the following individuals regarding this issue. I’ve offered an example letter that you can use to model your own after."
"james.oshea@latimes.com, andres.martinez@latimes.com, nicholas.goldberg@latimes.com, doug.frantz@latimes.com"
The example letter (from The Largest Minority:)
TO: james.oshea@latimes.com, andres.martinez@latimes.com, nicholas.goldberg@latimes.com, doug.frantz@latimes.comSUBJECT: RE: Hugh Pope's "Armenia Haunts the Turks Again"
Dear Editorial Staff Members:
I was shocked by the editorial by Hugh Pope entitled "Armenia Haunts the Turks Again" which ran on Tuesday, Jan. 22nd in the Los Angeles Times. As a reader of the Los Angeles Times, I am ashamed that your newspaper would publish an editorial, which puts forth views regarding the Armenian Genocide running contrary to the current standards of legitimate public discourse and historical information.
Though Pope argues that the Republic of Turkey should reconsider its denialist activities, the fundamental premise of his editorial rests on the argument of denial of the Armenian Genocide and is equivocally unacceptable for publication. This denial has long been used by the Turkish government to assuage the world's declarations of Ottoman Turkish complicity in Genocide.
While I respect that the Los Angeles Times would want to show alternate viewpoints, it should be clear that certain viewpoints are simply false, and outside of the realm of what can be accepted as legitimate and relevant. Turkish Denial is clearly outside of this realm. When published in the Los Angeles Times, such a viewpoint is given legitimacy. Other newspapers throughout the United States, most notably the New York Times, have long since moved beyond humoring individuals that hold this belief. Many have adopted policies to officially refer to the events of 1915-1923 as Genocide, not an alleged or so-called Genocide. Why hasn’t the Los Angeles Times adopted this policy?
Compounding this error is the fact that this editorial was allowed to run at perhaps one of the most inappropriate times in recent history. The murder of Hrant Dink, editor of the Agos newspaper, has become a force for unification in Turkey. Turks and Armenians have marched through the streets of Istanbul proclaiming, "We are all Armenian," an event that would have been considered impossible just a week ago. Tens of thousands of Turkish citizens mourned at his funeral, and demanded Turkey honor human rights and the right of free speech. Amidst this historic event, your newspaper decided to run an editorial, which from its title to its content, paints Turkey as the victim of Armenian and Western interference. While Turks and Armenians are enjoying a unity long unseen, Pope's editorial served to be a derisive tool to incite division. This is highly irresponsible and wholly naïve given that the Los Angeles Times serves the largest Armenian-American community in the United States.
If this issue is indicative of the nature of the LA Times' international coverage, I can no longer rely on its quality and should have to look elsewhere for world news.
I ask you to reconsider your standards regarding the Armenian Genocide so that editorials of this kind won't be published in the future.
With best regards,
YOUR NAME"
And now for The Los Angeles Times editorial titled, "Armenia Haunts Turkey Again:"
"The killing of a prominent Armenian journalist last week further widens the gap between Turkey and Europe.By Hugh Pope, HUGH POPE is the author of "Sons of the Conquerors: the Rise of the Turkic World." He lives in Istanbul.
January 23, 2007
IS THERE A CURSE hanging over Turkey? Each time the country achieves sustained development, something trips it up. This time it was the assassination on Friday of Hrant Dink, a newspaper editor, peacemaker and one of Turkey's most prominent Armenians.
Turkey is trying to rise to the challenge, as its credibility in talks on membership in the European Union is at stake. Denunciations of the slaying — from the government, from Islamic leaders, from the army — fill the airwaves. Thousands of Turks marched through the streets of Istanbul hours after the editor was shot, shouting, "We are all Armenians! We are all Hrant Dink!"
Police have arrested a suspect who has confessed to pulling the trigger, but no murkiness must remain about the people and the thinking behind the killing. The alleged killer is under 18 and is close to right-wing nationalists. Dink, who was repeatedly threatened by such nationalists, was left unprotected, but not just by the Turkish police. Bad laws, malevolent prosecutions and a growing nationalist hysteria helped create a lynch mob atmosphere.
What killed Dink, in short, is the Turkish republic's inability to deal with the Armenian issue — the charge that its predecessor state, the Ottoman Empire, killed 1.2 million Armenian men, women and children in a genocide that began in 1915.
Official Turkey is stuck in a rut of denial. Discussing the great omissions on the subject in Turkey's public education remains taboo. Efforts to open archives and to "leave it to the historians" lead to dead ends, partly because a scholarly debate won't assuage diaspora Armenians who demand formal acknowledgment of the genocide, and partly because of Turkey's anti-free-speech laws — most notoriously Penal Code Article 301, with its catchall penalties for "denigrating Turkishness."
The Turks have reasons to feel victimized. Christian powers don't apologize much for ethnic cleansing carried out between 1821 and 1923, when they rolled back the borders of the Ottoman Empire. Millions of Muslims were killed. In 1915, World War I was raging. Turkey was again under attack from Russia in the east and Britain and France in the west. The Armenian leadership openly sided with Turkey's enemies, demanded a state on Ottoman land and formed anti-Ottoman militias. Many Turks were killed by these Armenian groups.
Turkey fears an official apology for the Armenian deaths would trigger claims on its land or on seized Armenian assets. Turks cannot believe the sincerity of foreign parliaments which, usually ill-informed about the Turkish case, give in to Armenian diaspora lobbying for genocide declarations. (One such bill looks likely to pass the U.S. Congress in April.) Politics often seems to trump history. Would the French Parliament have made it a crime last year to deny a "genocide" by the Turks if an unrelated desire to keep Turkey out of the European Union had not been prevalent?
Dink didn't take this maximal view of Turkish evil. He once wrote that diaspora Armenians should commit their energy to independent Armenia and not "let hatred of the Turks poison their blood." Idiotically, it was that very column that led to his trial for violating Article 301, on the pretext that he had said Turks were poisonous. The misquote is the motive the assassin has given to police for his act — yet the Turkish media keep recycling this libel. Commentators are subtly shirking responsibility by labeling the murder a "provocation" or blaming "outside forces."
Brave new Turkish novels, films, exhibitions and conferences have tried to reassess the Armenian issue in recent years. But the nationalist upsurge has slowed if not stopped that progress.
Neither Turks nor Armenians should go on like this. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan could try a grand gesture. He might open the border with Armenia, closed since the early 1990s. He could advocate an international conference, where Turkey could argue its case that there was no centralized attempt to wipe out the Armenians. After all, Turkey already officially accepts that 300,000 people died. Best of all, Erdogan could abolish Article 301, which makes intellectuals like Dink a target.
None of this, however, is likely to happen. Turkey has presidential and parliamentary elections this year, and ultranationalists pose the main challenge to Erdogan's centrist, pro-Islamic Justice and Development Party, or AKP. Europe — whose support is critical in making a Turkish regime feel safe to reform — seems in no mood to extend lines of political credit to Turkey. Dink was a rare Armenian ready to compromise with Turkey, and his assassination will deter replacements.
So the gap between Turkey and Europe will widen again. Muddled thinking and inward-looking nationalism will continue to plague Turkey, and not only in its approach to the Armenian problem. After all, Dink's death is the symptom of negative currents that persist, not their cause. And that, of course, is why Turkey's curse keeps returning to strike with such tragic ease."
