Shifting Frames of Erdogan in U.S. Media:

The New York Times and The Washington Post

Example

Can Semercioğlu

1

0. Introduction

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of the Republic of Turkey,

who is a former politician and prime minister, is a political

figure in Turkey for nearly two decades. He is on the media

continuously since he has political discourses and actions that

are speculative and controversial. One can find his name not

only in Turkish media, but also in foreign media, especially in

U.S. media. The U.S. media can be counted as the most dominant

and the most influential media on the world, because politics

of U.S. that reflects upon rest of the world comes through

media. It also affects political figures in many senses. In

that context, Erdogan is figured in U.S. media in many ways.

Present paper explores how Erdogan is framed on The New York

Times and The Washington Post newspapers’ editorials between

2007 and 2014. The main aim of this paper is to show how frames

of these editorials were changed in this period. It seeks to

analyse aforementioned editorials by using frame analysis, and

2

to find significant results. The most important goal of this

paper is to indicate how these frames were changed depending on

which events, in order to understand how Erdogan is perceived

and reflected by U.S. media.

1. Historical Frame

1.1 Leader Cult in Turkey

Political figures has an important place in political

history of Turkey. It can be seen many examples of this from

early Republican years to today. Political structure of Turkey

and election system make capable of a system which can be

sustained for long years in parallel to a definite leader. A

summary of Turkey’s leaders can be exemplified as follows:

Mustafa Kemal and Inonu in the first decades of Republican era;

Ozal and Menderes pre-1980 coup era; Evren in coup years, early

1980’s; and - with the exception of coalition governments of

1990’s – Erdogan in 2000’s. All of them constitute most

important figures. These leaders are agenda-setters and

political-climate-setters.

Theorists in Turkey examined the leadership issue in

different ways. This debate has been made between 1960 and1980.

3

These years means that the years that dependence theory is a

common subject which constitutes the centre of the debates.

Heper, says that the state tradition in Turkey, for years,

featured leader cult. He has based his thought the paradigm of

centre and periphery. According to him, “the political scene of

Ottoman Empire is a backdrop for the development authoritarian

personalities [. /. .] which is a permanent tension” (2012, p.

39). His main emphasis is on state tradition which render

leaders important (2012, p. 15-49). Küçükömer is also has a

similar view on the same subject. He has emphasised the

difference between Eastern and Western societies, thereby

putting Turkey to Eastern side, and has explained why Turkey

does not have a civil society. (Küçükömer, 1994, p. 134).

Mardin is also based his thoughts on centre-periphery theory

like others. According to him, centrality of state has created

authoriterain leaders. (1992, p. 34-47).

Leaders in Turkey, often were agenda-setters. And Erdogan

as a leader is a product of these tradition which mentioned by

some authors above. It could be seen that Erdogan is a main

agenda-setter when one take a look into newspapers in Turkey,

especially into pro-government.

4

1.2 Historical Background of Erdogan and AKP

Various historical conditions has also a determinate force

in order to be perceive AKP, and hence Erdogan as an omnipotent

and charismatic leader in twenty-first century Turkey. Economic

one can be seen as significant. Economic ground for AKP is

constituted by the collapsing of welfare state in Western

countries, and by the new system which name is neoliberalism is

adopted through a decision which held in January 24, 1980, and

by its de facto implementation after collapsing of Soviet Union.

Behind this ground, one can clearly find that the

privatisation-based structure of neoliberalism. It’s a common

opinion that this structure causes economic crisis and unfolds

new authoritarian leaders and render current leaders more

authoritarian (Tenorio, Jensen and Rosas, 2011). It can be said

that the main reason for this common acceptance triggered the

need, belief and trust to an authoritarian leader. To this

extent, one can bluntly find some characteristic similarities

between Italy’s Berlusconi, France’s Sarkozy and Turkey’s

Erdogan

5

Erdogan’s discursive existence in political arena has the

most important part of his being perceived by society as an

agenda-setter leader. In Early years of AKP, its pro-EU

attitude created relative improvement illusion in post-economic

crisis era. On the other hand, high rates in general and local

elections as well as referendums; “one-minute” case in Davos

meeting; his attitude Mavi Marmara case; role of model country

which AKP has assumed in Middle East; and lastly, its holding

itself harmless from Gezi Park protests and Cemaat operations,

all of them is perceived by Turkish society as Erdogan’s, and

hence, AKP’s omnipotence.

Erdogan’s effect and influence to Turkish political arena

have these features. His biographical history has also same

effects. He has been elected as Istanbul Metropolitan Mayor in

March 27, 1994; he has been elected as prime minister between

2003 and 2014; he has been elected as president since 2014

August. His power has extended in twenty years.

Erdogan’s determinate role in Turkish political arena is a

subject for Western media as well as Turkish media.

2. Theoretical Frame

6

Frame analysis takes an important place in the sphere of

the sociology of news and media studies. The Notion of

“framing” was first used by sociologist Goffman as a

sociological term and later was borrowed by media and

communication field. Goffman defines the term frame as

“schemata of interpretation that enables individuals to

‘locate, perceive, identify and label’ occurrences or life

experiences” (1974, p. 21). Correspondingly, Entman

differentiated this definition and it has been a common

acceptance. According to Entman,

“Framing essentially involves selection and salience. To

frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make

them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to

promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral

evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item

described.” (Entman, 1993, p. 51) [emphasis in

original text]

Entman also states that, “[f]rames call attention to some

aspects of reality while obscuring other elements, which might

lead audiences to have different reactions.” (Entman, 1993, p.

55) For Vreese, Dutch media and communication professor,

7

“[f]raming involves a communication source presenting and

defining an issue” (Vreese, 2005, p. 51). He remarks that the

consequences of framing can be conceived on the individual and

the societal level. An individual level contains altered

attitudes about an issue based on exposure to certain frames,

while the societal level includes political socialisation,

decision-making, and collective actions (p. 52).

Framing is a process which includes and excludes some

aspects of reality into news story, that is, the most basic

definition of framing. To use Gamson and Modgliani’s point of

view, “[f]rames are [. . .] interpretative packages that give

meaning to an issue (1989, p. 3). By this way, this

interpretative aspect of frame make capable us to say that a

perception of reality is presented to audiences. And thus this

presentation has an important role to determine and to divert

intellectual structure of society.

“In short, a frame is an emphasis in salience of different

aspects of a topic” (Vreese, 2005, p. 53). Salience, thus,

creates a perception of reality in terms of textual and visual

news. Therefore “mass media constructs social reality by

“framing images of reality [. . .] in a predictable and

8

patterned way” (Mc-Quail, 1994, p. 331). Having said that,

journalism can be defined as a selection process of what to

reflect to society or not. Consequently, journalism takes an

important role to set society’s agenda in order to determine

what is at issue, what must be at issue. That is, it can be

state that the role of journalism is reciprocal with regards to

framing.

Nonetheless, frame analysis is a most important type of

analysis in the sphere of sociology of news and media studies.

Societal events, political events, and discourses based on

these events constitutes the main subject of frame analysis.

Thus frame analysis has a function to decipher how a news

story, and hence a reality, reflected to the society. Therefore

the role of media and its functions for society, and how

current reality and reality filtered by media reflected to the

society, is manifested.

Frame analysis is a trending analysing technique. There is

a wide range of studies which some prominent ones are listed

below: Gitlin (1980) examined the relationship between new left

movement and mass media; Noakes and Wilking (2002) discussed

Palestinian question; Entman (2004) treated US foreign policy

9

and public opinion and Edy and Meirick examined the war in

Afghanistan. One can clearly see that all these studies was

based on an “event”.

3. Aim, Scope and Method

The aim of this study is to treat how Erdogan as a leader

figure is framed in US media, by frame analysis. The years

between 2007 and 2014 is selected to analyse. The reason for

this is that certain political and societal events in Turkey

have caused frame shift in US media. Thus one can find many

similarities and parallelisms with regard to this events. To

this extent, I have chosen The New York Times and The

Washington Post which both are perceived as most-read and most

important newspapers. My aim is to examine editorials in these

newspapers. I will try to find newspapers’ opinion schemes and

hence their framing. Internet is used to find contents. The

word “Erdogan” is searched in these newspapers’ editorial

field, and articles which has “Erdogan” word in their headlines

and spots are selected for this study. Totally thirty-one

editorials was found based on the categorisation mentioned

above. Fifteen of them belong to The Washington Post and

10

sixteen of them belong to The New York Post. One can see that

year-based range and frequency on Graphic 1.

News and opinion articles on Erdogan are excluded. The

reason why I have chosen only editorials is to explain official

views and frames of these newspapers.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140

1

2

3

4

5

6

Article Frequency of Both Newspapers

Seri 1 Sütun1

Graphic 1. Frequency of editorial opinion articles on NYT and WP. Blue

field demonstrates WP and orange field demonstrates NYT.

3. 1. Function of Editorials

Editorial articles are used on newspapers in order to

interpret and comment on an issue. It can be found on most

11

newspapers, but it is not crucial for them. Editorials reflect

content of the entire newspaper.

At some point during the year every topic covered in

a newspaper, from politics to sports and the arts,

draws editorial discussion [. . .] The editorial

writers bring their own ideas, and agendas, to these

daily editorial board meetings, at which these ideas

are debated until a consensus is reached. At that

point, the group, under the direction and approval of

the editor (and sometimes the publisher), agrees on

the newspaper’s stance. (Hallock, 2006, p. 10)

There is significant differences between editorials and

opinion articles. An editorial reflects a newspaper’s official

ideas, comments and opinions on an issue, while an opinion

article carries just an authors’s views but it also expresses

general contours of a newspaper.

[Editorials] play a role in the formation and change

of public opinion, in setting the political agenda,

and in influencing social debate, decision making and

other forms of social and political action. When

12

expressed in editorials, opinions and ideologies are

being produced by journalists and other writers, who

both as professionals and as other social group

members (e.g., men, whites, conservatives, etc.)

exhibit their shared social representations, and

participate in the complex processes of newspaper

production and reception as well as in intergroup

interaction and institutional reproduction. (Van

Dijk, 1995)

Based on these results, I will claim that some political

events and Erdogan’s discourse have some parallelisms with the

editorials I will analyse. I will also claim that Erdogan’s

discourse has been reflected on US mainstream media with

various forms.

4. Analyse and Results

To construct a frame is very similar to set an agenda.

Many theorists “suggested that not only are agenda setting and

framing effects related, framing is, in fact, an extension of

agenda setting.” (Scheufele, 1999, p. 103)

13

It is likely to speak of three fundamental frames for the

editorials of both in NYT and WP: positive frame, middle frame

and negative frame. Positive framing is a frame which positive

opinions are reflected on any topic. Negative framing is a

frame which negative opinions predominantly reflected. Middle

framing is a frame which includes both negative and positive

and they are balanced.

Frames mentioned above should be separated into seven part

in order to explain them in detail. By doing this, we could

understand the difference between positive and negative frames.

These frames can be called: praise frame and support frame

which are positive; advice, warning and anxiety frame which are

middle; criticism and discontent frame which are negative.

Although it is thought that these frames include similar

themes, some keywords and catch-phrases of editorials cause the

differentiation.

4.1 Praise Frame

Praise frame is a framing which a political leader is

praised because of his or her doings, is embedded in an ideal

place. In this frame, a leader’s irreproachableness and

14

perfectness is stressed against certain events and facts. Key

emphasises here is a words like “the leader of…” and “success,

victory”. Sentences that have sufficiency of democracy theme is

often and predominantly used.

WP, “A Timely Victory in Turkey” (Jul 26, 2007): In an editorial has

written after AKP’s carrying a general election of July 22,

2007, it is stressed that Erdogan has liberalised Turkey.

Keyword: “victory”. Catch-phrase: “[Erdogan] has pushed through

liberalizing reforms, including greater rights for women”.

NYT, “Democracy’s Close Call in Turkey” (Aug 3, 2008): In an

editorial has written on rejection of a closure case, it is

said that this rejection has a democratic tendency. Keyword:

“democracy’s widening” Catch-phrase: “Turkey’s ruling party

would be wise to move slowly and carefully in its efforts to

expand the civil rights”

NYT, “A More Democratic Turkey” (Aug 17, 2010): In an editorial

has written on a referendum which held on September, 2010, it

is stressed that Turkey’s democracy has become a Western-style

democracy. Keyword: “more democratic” Catch-phrase: “The

changes also give Parliament a role in selecting some

15

constitutional court judges and roll back the unelected

establishment’s power to vet judicial nominations. That is

normal in Western democracies, including the United States.”

If we take a glance into these three editorials, we could

see that an absolute position is attributed to AKP and Erdogan.

Majority of these articles are written on elections which

Erdogan has carried on.

4.2 Support Frame

Support frame is a framing which gives a support to a

person with regards to various issues, problems and events, but

this support is not absolute and unchangeable in contrary to

praise frame. While general framing in a content is positive,

it is possible to encounter with some criticisms in some

sentences. Criticisms often are reflected implicitly.

WP, “Turkey’s Democracy Crisis” (Apr 30, 2007): It is emphasised

that TSK’s e-coup declaration on internet has contracted

Turkey’s democracy. Keyword: “progressive reforms”. Catch-

phrase: “Mr. Erdogan has led the most successful government in

recent Turkish history”

16

NYT, “Secularism and Democracy in Turkey” (May 1, 2007): It is

emphasised that not only TSK’s e-coup declaration on internet

has contracted Turkey’s democracy, but also government should

pay attention to secular sectors. Keyword: “democratically

elected”. Catch-phrase: [Turkey] “occupies an equally important

position as a true Muslim democracy on Europe’s frontier with

the Islamic world”

WP, “Secular and Antidemocratic” (May 2, 2008): An editorial which

has written on the first anniversary of e-coup declaration on a

stress for position of religion. Keyword: “liberal reforms”.

Catch-phrase: “Turkey, the most advanced democracy in the

Muslim world…”

It could be basically observed that the democracy theme

constitutes support frame. In addition to this, e-coup

declaration forms a main topic for this framing.

4.3 Advice Frame

In advice frame, there is a positive reflection less than

support frame. At the same time, some advices and suggestions

are made in order to sustain current situation. Need and should

tenses are generally used in this framing.

17

NYT, “Turkey’s Challenges” (Mar 25, 2012): An editorial that

suggests Erdogan to watch his steps after constitutional

referendum. Keyword: “legitimately”. Catch-phrase: “Turkey’s

democracy is still a long way from guaranteeing the rights and

freedoms of a diverse, polarized population.”

It is possible to include praise and support frame and

anxiety and warning frame to this category. Thus, advice frame

should be seen as a main feature of an editorial rather than a

political tendency.

4.3 Anxiety Frame

The content is neither positive nor negative for anxiety

frame. Moreover, it can be said that there is a neutral

approach to a subject. This is, however, in any way, not to be

understood as an absolute objectivity. Here, a situation that

dissolves or may dissolve a positive situation is elaborated.

The anxieties that have put into words is neither an advice nor

a warning. It can be said that there is a balance between

support and criticism.

WP, “Slipping in Turkey” (Nov 23, 2009): In this editorial,

government’s tax operation to Dogan Media Group is criticised.

18

Keyword: “slipping”. Catch-Phrase: “Mr. Erdogan and his party

were once seen by many in Washington as a model for how pious

Muslims could practice democratic politics. That image is

rapidly darkening.”

NYT, “Reading Turkey’s Vote” (Jun 14, 2011): An editorial which

stresses a danger for Turkey because AKP has taken 46 percent

of votes for 2011 general elections. Keyword: “authoritarian”.

Catch-phrase: “Recently, Mr. Erdogan has become more

authoritarian and thin-skinned.”

NYT, “Turkey’s Leadership” (Sep 21, 2011): An editorial which

expresses some anxieties about Turkey as a model country for

Arab countries. Keyword: “dangerously”. Catch-phrase: “As the

chief of a major Muslim democracy, Mr. Erdogan can legitimately

claim a leadership role. He needs to do so responsibly.”

NYT, “Prime Minister Erdogan’s Revenge” (Apr 1, 2014): An editorial

which mentions that AKP’s high percentage of votes of 2014

local elections might be resulted in a bad way. Keywords:

“polarisation, undemocratic”. Catch-phrase: “[this] shows how

far Mr. Erdogan has departed from democratic principles that

allow dissent.”

19

Subjects like operations which have been held, and the

role of Erdogan constitute a basis for this framing. What is in

common among editorials above is media and democratic

relations.

4.4 Warning Frame

In warning framing, there is more positive approach is

constituted rather than a negative one unlike frames mentioned

earlier. Should and need tenses lost its significance for

advices and suggestions, they have become signs of warning.

However, one should not conclude that there is a harsh

criticism here. Positive forms for content still constitute an

important part of content in general. Words like “turmoil,

dilemma and conundrum” are key and essential.

NYT, “A Clear Assault on Press” (Sep 13, 2009): In this editorial,

tax operation to Dogan Media Group and situation of media are

criticised. Keyword: “repression”. Catch-phrase: “Turkey has

provided a particularly chilling example of another way to shut

down independent voices”

NYT, “Turkey in Turmoil” (Jun 20, 2013): In this editorial,

Erdogan’s approach to Gezi protests is criticised. Keyword:”

20

legacy”. Catch-phrase: “Mr. Erdogan has gone too far in pushing

conservative views on a secular state and in suppressing

dissent.”

WP, “Turkey’s Power Struggles Threaten the Nation” (Jan 1, 2014): In

this editorial, Erdogan’s approach to corruption operations is

criticised. Keyword: respect. Catch-phrase: “Mr. Erdogan

[. . .] has become increasingly intolerant of critics, whether

in the media or civil society.”

NYT, “Turkey’s Wrong Turn” (Jan 28, 2014): In this editorial,

Erdogan’s approach to corruption operations is criticised.

Keyword: turmoil. Catch-phrase: “Mr. Erdogan has spewed endless

conspiracy theories and incendiary rhetoric.”

It can be said that what constitutes a fundamental basis

for warning frame is a complicated and deadlock-like situation

of Turkey on certain societal and political events and

movements.

4.5 Criticism Frame

In criticism frame, negative sentences and criticisms can

be seen bluntly in an editorial. The dose of criticism is

increased unlike other frames. Positive phrases cannot be found

21

in this frame. Instead, criticism constitutes a centrality.

Words like “authoritarianism and crisis” are generally used for

this frame.

WP, “Turkey’s Bad Example on Democracy and Authoritarianism” (Mar 10,

2011): In this editorial, Turkey’s situation after Ergenekon

operations is elaborated and AKP is criticised. Keyword:

Authoritarianism. “If Turkey ceases to become a functioning

democracy with unquestionably free media, neither Arab states

nor anyone else will look to Turkey as a mentor.”

NYT, “Protests in Turkey” (Jun 3, 2013): In this editorial,

Erdogan’s harsh stance is criticised. Keyword: authoritarian.

Catch-phrase: “Mr. Erdogan’s increasingly authoritarian ways

and his imposition of conservative Islam”

WP, “Brazil and Turkey Experience Growing Pains” (Jun 22, 2013): In

this editorial, a comparison between protest movements in

Turkey and Brasil was made. Keyword: autocratic. Catch-phrase:

“Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has grown arrogant

and autocratic-minded”

WP, “Turkey Needs to Turn Away from Mr. Erdogan’s Repression” (Aug 15,

2014): In this editorial, the situation of democracy in Turkey

22

after Erdogan was elected as president is criticised.. Keyword:

new Turkey? Catch-phrase: “Mr. Erdogan ought to demonstrate

that he respects basic principles of democracy.”

NYT, “Turkey’s Refusal to Fight ISIS Hurts the Kurds” (Oct 10, 2014): In

this editorial, the situation in Kobane and Turkey’s stance is

elaborated and criticised. Keyword: “Erdogan’s cynical

political calculations”. Catch-phrase: “If Mr. Erdogan refuses

to defend Kobani and seriously join the fight against the

Islamic State, he will further enable a savage terrorist group

and ensure a poisonous long-term instability on his border.”

WP, “The News Media Crackdown in Turkey Threatens Democracy” (Dec

21, 2014): In this editorial, the operation to Zaman newspaper is

criticised and press freedom is elaborated. Keyword: Erdogan’s

paranoia. Catch-phrase: “Mr. Erdogan appears to be hurtling

toward the kind of autocracy evident today in Russia.”

Although criticism frame offers a critical view for some

issues, the past often take into consideration in positive way.

4.6 Discontent frame

Discontent frame includes harsh and strong criticism

rather than criticism frame. Blunt and sole criticisms remind

23

us of some opposition. It cannot be found that implicit

expressions are used. It is nearly impossible to speak of

positive theme. But, still, this theme can be found in one or

two sentences. Keywords are like “anti-democratic, fascism,

dictator”.

WP, “Prime Minister Erdogan’s Strongman Response to Turkey’s Protests”

(Jun 3, 2013): In this editorial, Erdogan’s pressure on media and

police violence to protestors are criticised. Keyword:

“majoritarian”. Catch-phrase: “the past week’s events have

underlined that the country no longer has the robust free press

found in Western nations.”

NYT, “Turkey’s EU Bid” (Jun 25, 2013): Turkey’s stance for EU is

discussed after Gezi Park protests. Keyword: authoritarian.

Catch-phrase: “Mr. Erdogan deserves the strongest possible

criticism”

WP, “Turkey’s Prime Minister Acts Desperately to Hold onto His Power”

(Mar 25, 2014): A critical editorial on Twitter ban in Turkey.

Keyword: “dangerous”. Catch-phrase: “Mr. Erdogan is engaged in

a ruthless campaign to maintain his hold on power”

24

NYT, “Let Mr. Erdogan Fight His Own Battles” (May 3, 2014): A

critical editorial on the tension between AKP and Cemaat, and

its reflection to U.S. Keyword: “authoritarian”. Catch-phrase:

“Let Mr. Erdogan Fight His Own Battles”

NYT, “Will Recep Tayyip Erdogan Extend the Presidential Powers?” (Aug

19, 2014): In this article, Erdogan’s rising power after

presidential elections is criticised. Keyword: authoritarian,

undemocratic. Catch-phrase: “If Mr. Erdogan succeeds in

solidifying power, the future of Turkey’s already shaky

democracy is more in doubt than ever”

NYT, “Turkey’s Descent into Paranoia” (Dec 20, 2014): AKP’s operation

to Cemaat and its anti-democratic stance are criticised.

Keyword: paranoia. Catch-phrase: “Mr. Erdogan’s efforts to

stifle criticism and dissent show an authoritarian leader

living in a parallel universe”

It can be said that Erdogan was solely criticised in the

all of editorials mentioned above. In a clear contrast to

former frames, here, it cannot be spoken of common events theme

or patterns for editorials. Conversely, various events

constitute this frame.

25

5. Analysis and Results

Table 1 shows the distribution of frames in the editorials for

newspapers. According to this distribution, it can be found

editorials, many in number on NYT compared to WP. Therefore,

number of frames for NYT is more than WP.

Our analysis shows that the number of praise frame and of

discontent frame is more than other frames. When one look at it

proportionally, it can be seen that NYT is a newspaper on which

praise frame can be found (0.125). But on WP, this proportion

is just 0.9. The reverse of this goes for support frame. WP is

a newspaper on which most criticism frame can be found (0.363),

while in NYT, this proportion is just 0.125. The reverse of

this goes for discontent frame. There is a balanced

distribution for discontent frame on NYT and WP, when one takes

NYT into consideration as predominant (0.43 > 0.18). In

conclusion, it can be said that NYT is a newspaper which uses

praise and discontent frame proportionally, compared to WP.

General tendency of both newspapers is gone from anxiety frame

to discontent frame. Consequently, these newspapers generally

take a glance to Erdogan in a critical way.

26

WP NYT Total

Praise Frame 1 2 3

Support Frame 2 1 3

Advice Frame 0 1 1

Anxiety Frame 1 3 4

Warning Frame 1 3 4

Criticism

Frame

4 2 6

Discontent

Frame

2 4 6

Total 11 16 27

Table 1. Distribution of frames for

newspapers and frames.

The distribution of frames by years make us capable of seeing

how editorial framings of WP and NYT changed. Praise frame was

used once in 2007, 2008 and 2009, while support frame was used

twice in 2007 and once in 2008. As we mentioned earlier, advice

frame would be go for all frames. It was used in 2012 once.

27

Anxiety frame was used once in 2009 and 2013, and twice in

2014. Criticism frame was used once in 2011, and twice in 2013,

and thrice in 2014. Discontent frame was used twice in 2013 and

four times in 2014.

This distribution gives us an opportunity to observe the frame

shift of Erdogan between 2007 and 2014. Criticism and

discontent frame was not used for Erdogan until 2011. It can be

concluded that positive stance of both newspapers for Erdogan

was placed between 2007 and 2011. On the other hand, frames

which we called later advice frame, anxiety frame and warning

frame comprise in between 2009 and 2014. We can clearly observe

that criticism and discontent frames was used more salient in

2013 and 2014, taking into consideration that they are used

once in 2011, which is negligible.

Accordingly, it can be bluntly said that frame shifts was gone

from positive to negative. Most of editorials which uses

positive frames are connected to the Erdogan’s election

victories, e-coup declaration of TSK against Erdogan and

closure case of Constitutional Court. Middle frames are also

connected with, in general, elections, social movements and

problems of Turkey as a model country for Arab countries. As

28

for negative frames, negative perception has begun since Gezi

Park protests of 2013. The words like authoritarian,

autocratic, repressive were used in these frames. Social

movements, freedom of expression, power relations were

constituted the basis of negative frames. Consequently, it can

be said that frame shifts was gone from positive to negative.

So, what does shifting frame from positive to negative in

editorials about Erdogan mean? No doubt that social events in

Turkey have changed the editorials of WP and NYT radically.

Thus, all we can see is that positive frames were identified

with elections, while negative frames were marked with social

events and movements. These social movements have found a place

in editorials and Erdogan was framed negatively since they are,

at the same time, created a perception of reality. And giving

place Erdogan in editorials (see. Section 3.1) was helped us to

find significant conclusions on how a reality about Erdogan was

constructed and how an agenda was set. In this regard, Gunther

and Storey (2003) concluded that, “perceptions can have a self-

fulfilling effect on the realization of communication goals”

(213). Finally, it can be said that “news was a constructed

reality shaped according to some underlying notion of social

29

power.” (Zelizer, 1993, p. 60) A constructed reality is always

in related to common senses. It creates, produces and

constructs reality. According to Zelizer in many numbers of

studies “showing that news reality was constructed, often in

the name of agendas like practical work accomplishment” (1993,

p. 69) have been made. So, our conclusion should be that a

leader figure in editorials creates social reality and opinion.

According to McCombs and Shaw, “the salience of a leader in the

news also is linked with whether an individual holds any

opinion at all.” (1972, p. 176) These are important how Erdogan

was perceived by U.S. media through frames and how he is

reflected back to Turkish and world media.

Works Cited

Crespo-Tenorio, Adriana, Nathan M. Jensen, and Guillermo Rosas.

"Leaders, Parties, and Survival after Banking Crises."

Accessed on Jan 1, 2015. 30

http://www.iub.edu/~eucenter/documents/parties_leaders_survival

_Rosas.pdf

De Vreese, Claes H (2005). "News framing: Theory and typology."

Information design journal+ document design 13.1, 51-62.

Edy, Jill A., and Patrick C. Meirick (2007). "Wanted, dead or

alive: Media frames, frame adoption, and support for

the war in Afghanistan." Journal of Communication 57.1, 119- 141.

Entman, Robert M. (1993). "Framing: Toward clarification of a

fractured paradigm." Journal of communication 43, 51-58.

Entman, Robert M. (2008). "Theorizing mediated public

diplomacy: The US case." The International Journal of Press/Politics 13.2,

87-102.

Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani (1989). "Media

discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A

constructionist approach." American journal of sociology, 1-37.

Gitlin, Todd (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making

& unmaking of the new left. Univ of California Press.

31

Goffman, Erving (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of

experience. Harvard University Press.

Gunther, Albert C., and J. Douglas Storey (2003). "The

influence of presumed influence." Journal of Communication 53.2,

199-215.

Hallock, Steven M (2007). Editorial and opinion: The dwindling marketplace

of ideas in today's news. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Heper, Metin (2006). Türkiye'de devlet geleneği. Ed. Zeynep Öztürk.

Doğu Batı Yayınları.

Küçükömer, İdris (1994). Düzenin yabancılaşması: batılaşma. Bağlam

Yayınları.

Mardin, Şerif (1994). "Tanzimat’tan Sonra Aşırı

Batılılaşma." Türk Modernleşmesi, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 21-79.

Mardin, Şerif (1992) Din ve İdeoloji. İletişim Yayınları.

McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald L. Shaw (1972) "The agenda-

setting function of mass media." Public opinion quarterly 36.2, 176-

187.

McQuail, Denis (1987). Mass communication theory: An introduction. Sage

Publications, Inc.

32

Noakes, John A., and Karin Gwinn Wilkins (2002). "Shifting

frames of the Palestinian movement in US news." Media, Culture &

Society 24.5, 649-671.

Scheufele, Dietram A (1999). "Framing as a theory of media

effects." Journal of communication 49.1, 103-122.

Van Dijk, Teun A (1995). "Opinions and ideologies in

editorials." 4th International Symposium of Critical Discourse

Analysis, Language, Social Life and Critical Thought, Athens.

Zelizer, Barbie (1993). "Journalists as interpretive

communities." Critical Studies in Media Communication 10.3, 219-237.

33