Privatization of Governance, Delegated Censorship, and Hegemony in the Digital Era

Abstract

The Turkish media environment provides rich examples of how the ruling elites exert control over the flow of information in the digital era for undemocratic purposes while most popular accounts see democratization as inherently defined within the internet itself. It is crucial to analyze power relations before making bold claims of transformation when it comes to the democratizing potential of media. An analysis of the relationship between the Turkish government and media companies, including digital networking platforms, reveals how the struggle to control the information flows is taking place: through access restrictions, legal cases, and attacks from government officials, the ruling elites try to privatize governance by offloading censorship onto private intermediaries on behalf of their own interests and to establish a relationship similar to their relationship with the mainstream media.

KEYWORDS:

• censorship
• clientelism
• digital media
• Gezi protests
• hegemony
• surveillance
• Turkish media

Notes

1 I use the term “digital capitalism” the same way that Dan Schiller (1999, xiv) uses it: “Networks are directly generalizing the social and cultural range of the capitalist economy as never before.”

2 One of the common reactions is to differentiate and defend the American media experience by claiming that under US jurisdiction journalists are not under direct pressure; they do not end up in jail because of their work, etc. Hence, scholars demand proof—overt examples of the relationship between the media and the ruling elites that contributes to undemocratic ends. The problem arises when claims about the mainstream media’s performance are treated as media effects studies. Secondly, the scholarship tends to ignore conditions in United States-occupied countries such as Iraq. Nevertheless, the question is why the mainstream media cannot step outside of the elite agenda and framework in their treatment of cases like Ferguson, Missouri and US wars.

3 Formal advertising is defined as “legal notifications, issued generally by a government agency, to advise the public about its intention to request bids for a job, program, or project” (BusinessDictionary.com).

4 Exploitation does not necessarily exclude gaining personal pleasure from the craft or the product. For a detailed account of exploitation and the potential for empowerment in the digital age, see Scholes (2013); also, see Fuchs (2010).

5 Yarimar Bonilla and Jonathan Rosa, in their study on #Ferguson, call it “mediated frustration” (Bonilla and Rosa 2015).

6 In 2002, the restrictions on cross-ownership were lifted, while in 2011 the cap on foreign capital was raised to 50 percent, which combined with various bypass methods eventually resulted in a hyper-neoliberal market in which both national and international mergers and acquisitions further concentrated the media ownership.

7 In March 2015, the government introduced a law that gradually permits the country’s telecommunication agency to ban sites based on the cabinet’s request unless a court intervenes.

8 After serving as party leader and prime minister, Erdogan was elected president and unilaterally redefined the office of the presidency from one of neutrality to one of partisan politics.