The Influence of Mass Media on Turkish Foreign Policy in

Responding to the Crimean Annexation by Russian Federation in

2014

Maula Hudaya

and Dwi Aulia Putri

Department of International Relations, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Department of International Relations, Universitas Andalas, Padang, Indonesia

Keywords: Crimea, Turkish Foreign Policy, Mass Media, Public Opinion.

Abstract: The annexation of the Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014 was a very controversial action that sparked

various responses from countries in international society. Among the various responses, Turkey became the

one who strongly opposed the Russian Federation’s decision in the Crimea, and openly declared its stance to

support the Ukraine in its territorial dispute. Turkey's foreign policy, as stated before, is quite contradictory

to reality in that the relationship between Turkey and Russia was at a pretty good level. The closeness of their

relations has been indicated by the cooperation woven by both countries, with one of the cooperation’s focus

points being in the field of nuclear energy. There was also a fairly intense meeting between Erdogan and

Vladimir Putin during that period. Under these conditions, it is almost impossible for Turkey to take a very

opposite stand against Russia in a dispute that does not even affect Turkey directly. Therefore, in this paper,

the author attempts to analyse Turkish foreign policy through the level of analysis of the mass media and

public opinion by looking at the extent to which the mass media can influence public opinion against the

Crimea, which can ultimately be used to pressure the government. The mass media and public opinion level

of analysis is very interesting to use in this case because it can explain Turkey's foreign policy from different

perspectives, coupled with the media in Turkey being quite contrary to the Erdogan regime.

1 INTRODUCTION

Foreign policy is an indispensable element of a

country, especially when it tries to play an active role

in the realm of international relations. There are many

factors influencing the foreign policy of a country.

Therefore, there are various levels of analysis (LoA)

that are helpful in explaining the reasons behind a

country's foreign policy. One of the most interesting

is mass media and public opinion LoA. In this paper,

the authors attempt to explain the reasons behind

Turkey's foreign policy in response to the Crimean

annexation by the Russian Federation in 2014 through

the LoA of mass media and public opinion.

Before entering further discussion about the

Turkish response to the Crimean annexation, the

authors will explain the background to the conflict

first. The Crimea is one of the regions in the Ukraine

which has a population composition consisting of

mostly ethnic Russians. In the era of the presidential

administration of Viktor Yanukovych in the Ukraine,

the orientation of the Ukraine - which was originally

more inclined to the countries of Western Europe -

shifted to Russia. This happened because of the

cooperation between the Ukraine and Russia in the

field of energy, especially natural gas, in which the

Ukraine relies on the supply of natural gas from

Russia to meet its energy needs. The proximity that

occurred between the two countries did not last long.

It happened because the president of Yanukovych,

who was elected in 2010, was eventually overthrown

in 2014. Yanukovych's overthrowing came when he

made a surprise deal with Russian president, Vladimir

Putin. The deal stated that Russia bought Ukrainian

bonds amounting to 15 billion US dollars and slashed

the price of natural gas being exported to the Ukraine

by up to one-third. The widespread news seems to be

a firm confirmation that President Yanukovcyh

ignored protests from the people of the Ukraine

demanding that the Ukraine no longer be a Russian

ally, but more oriented towards Western Europe,

especially the European Union (Diuk, 2014).

Hudaya, M. and Putri, D.

The Inﬂuence of Mass Media on Turkish Foreign Policy in Responding to the Crimean Annexation by Russian Federation in 2014.

DOI: 10.5220/0008820803070312

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Contemporary Social and Political Affairs (ICoCSPA 2018), pages 307-312

ISBN: 978-989-758-393-3

307

The assertiveness of Yanukovych to further attach

the Ukraine to Russia caused concern for the people

of the Ukraine. They were and are traumatised by the

bad memories of when the Ukraine was still under the

Soviet Union. This is evidenced by the huge negative

view of the people of the Ukraine against Russia

under Vladimir Putin’s regime, where Onuch (2015)

stated that almost 60% of Ukrainian people have a

very bad view of the regime of Vladimir Putin.

Therefore, it can be understood that Ukrainian society

considers cooperating with Russia as hampering the

development of the Ukraine. Therefore, there

emerged a much larger protest action in response to

Yanukovych's decision. The protest was exacerbated

by the issue that Yanukovych was involved in a

corruption scandal. Public anger also increased when

Tetyana Chornovol, a journalist who exposed the

scandal, was persecuted by some alleged accomplices

of Yanukovych (Diuk, 2014). These events triggered

the occurrence of Euromaidan, which ultimately

succeeded in overthrowing Yanukovych.

The result of the event was that Yanukovych was

replaced by Petro Poroshenko; the regime change in

the Ukraine was raising concerns in Russia. The

concern was triggered by the indications that

Poroshenko was a pro-Western leader. Generally,

their concerns were that the Ukraine would be divided

into two. The first worry was that NATO would

expand into Ukraine, and the second concern was that

Russian ethnics in the Ukraine would be

discriminated against and receive ill-treatment by the

Ukrainian society, as well as by the regime in power.

In response to this, the authors can see that the

purpose of Russia's annexation of the Crimea was to

secure the Russian naval ports in Sevastopol as well

as to protect ethnic Russians in the Crimea.

In fact, the justification is very understandable,

since Russia is a geopolitically situated country in the

heart region. In history, it is not uncommon for it to

experience an invasion by the great powers around it

so as to construct the Russian identity as an expansive

nation (Lavrov, 2016). Although the annexation of

the Crimea is justifiable for Russia, it has led to

various reactions from various countries in which

many countries denounced the Russian action, and

among them, was Turkey.

As the authors have mentioned earlier, the

Crimean annexation by Russia reaped harsh criticism

from various countries, where Turkey became one of

the countries that cast a strong condemnation of

Russia related to the annexation of the Crimea.

Turkish condemnations of Russia's annexation of the

Crimea is an anomaly because the diplomatic ties

between Turkey and Russia are practically

harmonious, at least up until the shooting down of a

Russian fighter jet by Turkish armed forces in 2015.

The author sees that the Turkish foreign policy

anomaly is closely linked with Turkish public

pressure and pressure from Turkish mass media. The

authors therefore see that the mass media and public

opinion can explain the reasons behind the policy.

2 LEVEL OF ANALYSIS: MASS

MEDIA & PUBLIC OPINION

In the study of conventional foreign policy decision-

making views, the mass media such as newspapers,

television, radio, press, and multi-media, serve only

as a channel to convey messages or news during the

process of foreign policy formulation (Naveh, 2002).

Naveh saw that the study did not realise that the mass

media has a much larger role than that. Therefore,

Naveh (2002) also stated that the mass media should

be involved in the analysis to formulate the foreign

policy itself.

Naveh (2002) stated that there are three models

that describe the role of the media in decision-making

related to the formulation of foreign policy. The three

models focus on the view that the public environment

or the wider community is one source of input that

can be taken into consideration when formulating

foreign policy. The first model was initiated by Glenn

Snyder et al., (1969, in Naveh 2002). Snyder stated

that in the process of foreign policy formulation, there

is a setting that consists of two aspects, namely

internal and external. Snyder (1969, in Naveh 2002)

stated that the setting potentially has an impact on all

decisions made by the state. Internal in this sense is

understood as the factors that come from within the

country, such as a community environment consisting

of culture, population and public opinion (Naveh,

2002). In other words, the media plays a major role in

shaping the environment. Media can be interpreted as

a means to expressing interpretations and non-

governmental expectations from various groups and

components of society (Naveh, 2002).

Michael Brecher developed a much more detailed

analytical framework for the analysis of foreign

policy decision making, and he also involved

explicitly the role of the media as a "communication

network in the political system" that allows the flow

of information about the operational environment to

the government elite (Naveh 2002). The framework

developed by Brecher is a model that has an

environmental design. Brecher believes that the

foreign policy system consists of an environment or

ICoCSPA 2018 - International Conference on Contemporary Social and Political Affairs

308

setting. The operational environment defines the

setting in which foreign policy decision-making is

conducted (Naveh, 2002). The concept of setting

refers to a set of relevant factors and conditions,

which can influence the country's external behaviour.

The operational environment specifies the parameters

or constraints on which the decision maker must act

(Naveh, 2002).

However, like other authors, Brecher does not

explicitly involve the mass media as an instrument of

input variables impacting on foreign policy decision

making. The input variables referred to by Naveh

(2002) are external factors, and a part of the

international environment. Viewing the media as a

variable input in foreign policy decision making

involves understanding its role in influencing society

and politics in the agenda setting and constructing

reality.

The third model of foreign policy formulation was

initiated by Papadakis and Starr (1987, in Naveh,

2002) to analyse the process of formulating foreign

policy in small countries, but this model remains

relevant to other countries as well. The environment

that forms the inputs for the foreign policy decision-

making process is described as the structure of

opportunity, risk, and price and profit, which restricts

decision-makers. However, Papadakis and Starr do

not involve mass media in their models, neither to

form part of the community level in an environment,

nor as part of the opportunities or obstacles that affect

the internal government in making decisions (Naveh,

2002).

The mass media has begun to have a significant

influence on the formulation of foreign policy since

the presence of television broadcasts on a global scale

and the emergence of an international news agency

that is CNN (Gilboa, 2005). According Gilboa,

humans always need news in order to follow the

development of an event that is or has happened.

Even if we look at history when the civil war occurred

in the United States in 1861 to 1865, the demand for

news increased dramatically. As a result, the United

States Newspaper increased its publication to seven

days a week (Gilboa, 2005).

The same condition occurred during the Gulf War

in Iraq in 1991. Gilboa (2005) stated that with the

availability of global cable television broadcasts, the

public was able to watch the war reports first aired in

real time. Therefore, the public interest in the news

reported, especially by CNN, is very high. In fact,

many Americans sit in front of the television for hours

to watch news broadcasts live from conflict areas.

The huge public interest in news broadcast from all

over the world has not been followed by a critical

attitude to question the truth of the news presented,

making it a great opportunity for the mass media to

further influence public opinion. The author

discerned that this factor is what then encourages the

emergence of the CNN effect. Gilboa (2005) stated

that the CNN effect arises because of changes in the

attitude of the international community caused by the

ease and speed of access to information resources.

Meanwhile, a computer security expert stated that the

CNN effect occurred when the source of information,

which has very much entered into the news, was

manipulated (Johnston, 1996 in Giboa, 2005).

Despite the existence of the CNN affect theory,

there is still a debate among academics and policy

makers because of a lack of evidence that leads to it.

Already there are some cases that claim to suffer the

impact of the CNN effect itself. Gilboa (2005) stated

that in 1999, there were protests from senior US and

British officials including Tony Blair related to the

issue of Russian military activity against the Chechen

people. In response to the protests, the senior military

officers of

Russia, General Valery Minilov, stated that the

protests made were on the basis of news spread

widely through the media, without being clarified

directly and seeking the truth in advance, resulting in

misinformation related to what is actually happening

in Chechnya.

Gilboa (2005) also explained that the mass media

has proven to be on the path of diplomacy that is

sometimes far more effective than conventional lines.

This is in line with Naveh (2002), who explained

about some of the functions of mass media in

influencing foreign policy as the only agenda setting.

The mass media can enhance the prestige and

authority of a person or group by giving legitimacy to

their status. Agenda setting is a way that the media

constructs public opinion in accordance with what is

desired by the media, where there is usually a political

agenda. Naveh (2002) also stated that for most

political observers abroad, an overview of the world's

most influential forum today can be precisely map

mapped by journalists and editors compared to a map

of the work of cartographer. Although the map

compiled by the media does not provide enough

information that is objective to the reader, it must be

admitted that the map is very successful in directing

the reader toward what to think about. In other words,

the media exerts an influence on how one views a

region, such as the existence of a construction that

makes the audience have a negative view that the

Middle East is nothing more than a terrorist nest and

a centre of chaos.

The Inﬂuence of Mass Media on Turkish Foreign Policy in Responding to the Crimean Annexation by Russian Federation in 2014

309

Naveh (2002) also stated that another function of

mass media in foreign policy is as a means to conduct

framing. Framing is defined as a process in which a

medium creates an image by filtering out existing

facts for use in foreign policy formulation. Seeing the

explanation that the media play an important role in

the formulation of foreign policy, the authors saw that

the influence of media in building public opinion is

actually divided into two. First, is the media

influencing public opinion to oppose, criticise, or

pressure governments to change or formulate foreign

policy. An example of this is in the case of the

Rohingya conflict; the media played public opinion,

viewing the conflict from religious sentiments in

which Muslims are the victims of a vicious massacre

perpetrated by non-Muslims. This affects public

opinion, especially in Indonesia where religious

sentiments are still very strong. As a result, many

people are demonstrating and pressuring the

Indonesian government to respond to the case. In the

end, the actual Indonesian government did not have a

significant national interest in Rohingya and also

responded, due to the strong public pressure framed

by the media. The second is how the government uses

mass media to construct public opinion in order to

increase the legitimacy of the policies adopted. The

author sees that only a strong government and

firmness in the formulation of foreign policy alone

can do this, especially if the government has control

over the mass media within a country. The author

noted that the influence of mass media on the

formulation of foreign policy in Turkey is a very

interesting thing because in Turkey itself, there is a

big media company that is called the Dogan Group,

which in some ways is contrary to the Erdogan

government.

3 TURKISH MASS MEDIA AND

FOREIGN POLICY

The annexation of the Crimea by Russia, as the writer

explained earlier, caused controversy that provoked

different responses from each country, not least

Turkey. As published in news reports, Hurriyet

(2016) stated that Turkey once again condemned the

Russian occupation of the Crimea, and gave support

to the Tatar people in the Crimea. To explain why the

Turkish government under President Reccep Tayyip

Erdogan so condemned the Russian annexation action

against the Crimea and gave such strong support to

the Tatar people in the Crimea, it can be seen through

how the mass media influenced public opinion in

Turkey and how the government regime played the

mass media to get support for the policies undertaken.

Before seeing how far the media plays an

important role in influencing Turkish foreign policy

related to the Crimean annexation, the author will be

able to determine what role the mass media in Turkey

has played since the multi-party era in Turkey. Rich

(2010) explained that despite the strict control of

radio media in 1927, it has yet to have a broad impact

on existing politics. This happened because in that

era, Turkey still had a single party system so there

was only one camp with control of the media. That

changed as the multi-party system began to take

effect. Rich (2010) explained that after the transition

from a single party system to a multi-party one, the

reach of the radio broadcasting network was

increasingly expanded and directed almost

exclusively to reporting things seen from the point of

view of the ruling party or the majority, so it can be

said that there is virtually no objectivity in the news

broadcast by Turkish radio. It is not wrong to mention

the role of the media at that time only as a means of

framing for the Turkish government.

The condition shifted when there were rapid

developments in the information technology sector

not accompanied by the creation of appropriate

regulations (Rich, 2010). These changes have led to a

variety of media controlled by private sectors. As a

result, the mass media is then dominated by

conglomerates who pursue profits when running the

media business. Then, at the end of the military

regime that was subsequently replaced by the civil

regime under Turgut Ozal where he managed to unite

Turkey into the global market but failed to unify

disputed opinions within Turkey itself, it actually

degraded the legitimacy of the government. Coupled

with the occurrence of the two major recessions of the

1990s, it created a great opportunity for the mass

media to increase its influence in politics (Rich,

2010).

Political instability in Turkey in that decade

coexisted with different views and there was a new

prime minister five times in less than nine years,

which very clearly indicates that there were no

hegemon actors in Turkish politics. Therefore, the

media has a greater chance to increase its influence in

the political sphere. In fact, observers do not hesitate

to claim that the media has emerged as a "First Estate"

in the political realm. The claim is not excessive. One

of the biggest beneficiaries is Dogan, who became the

third largest conglomerate in Turkey (Kaya, 2010).

The Dogan Group, which is controlled by Aydin

Dogan, has huge potential when it comes to

influencing public opinion. This happens because the

ICoCSPA 2018 - International Conference on Contemporary Social and Political Affairs

310

media group is very big, and consists of not only

Hurriyet which moves in the realm of newspapers, but

there are other newspapers such as Radikal, Posta,

Fanatik, Millyet, and Vatan which also under the

Dogan group. In addition to newspaper media, the

Dogan group also controls television. Dogan has a

total of 13 television stations, including Canal D, Eko

TV, Euro D, CNN Turk, Super Channel, Euro Star,

Canal D Romania, TNT Turkey, Cartoon Network,

NBA TV, TV 2 and Boing. In addition, the company

also controls five radio stations, four of which are still

active. With so much mass media controlled by one

party, as happened in Turkey, it would be possible for

the Dogan Group to form public opinion which is also

related to the process of foreign policy formulation in

Turkey.

Aydin Dogan himself is a figure opposed to

Erdogan. This statement is evidenced by the news

published by Hurriyet on its website stating that

President Erdogan repeatedly dropped criticisms and

personally attacked Aydin Dogan (Hurriyet, 2015). In

fact, as a result of the dispute between Dogan and

Erdogan, the Dogan Group was banned by the

government (Reuters, 2015). Given the poor

relationship between the government and the media,

the most likely condition is that the media was trying

to play public opinion in order to bring down the

government. However, in the case of Turkey with the

Crimea, it is not very clear. But the authors see that

the media plays a role in influencing Turkey's related

foreign policy.

As the authors explained earlier, Turkey

responded to Russia's attitude toward the Crimea by

casting condemnation and condemning the Russian

actions. On the other hand, Turkey actually supports

the Crimean Tatar nation and the Ukraine. This is a

bit of an anomaly because Turkey has a considerable

interest in Russia especially in the energy sector, but

Turkey has also taken action by condemning Russia.

The author has noted that the role of the media in this

case is very strong. Based on the data that the authors

have obtained, the news that emerged during the

Crimean annexation event was published by leading

media such as Hurriyet and Sabah, many of which

contain framing elements.

These media filter out the facts and select the facts

that are "sold" to the Turkish public. One fact that is

played is the fact that in Crimea, there are Crimean

Tatar people who have also become the victims of

annexation, and who also experienced violence from

the Russian side. The Crimean Tatar nation is made

up of ethnic Muslims who have lived in Crimea for

centuries. The nation first became diaspora and fled

to the Ottoman Turks in 1783 due to the impact of the

Crimean annexation by the Russian empire. Then

they became diaspora again due to the Crimean war

in 1853. Therefore, up until now, there have been

many Tatar people who are descendants of the

Crimean Tatars in Turkey. The narrative and

demographic conditions are repeatedly exploited by

the Turkish media in view of the issue of the Crimean

Annexation in 2014.

The news published in the Daily Sabah (2014)

was titled "Turkey's Crimean Tatars worried for

Crimea". The story states the narrative that the Tatar

nation was a nation that was expelled from the

Crimean lands due to the first Russian annexation and

the outbreak of the Crimean war in 1853. The article

seemed to illustrate that the Tatars are the most

disadvantaged victims in the crisis, without

explaining the situation that occurred in the Crimea

as a whole. It was these reports that then constructed

the public view of the Crimea that Russia was the only

criminal in play and that the Tatars were the main

victims. As published in Daily Sabah (2014), there

have been many Turkish Tatar people who have

demonstrated appropriately.

The number will continue to increase with the

publication of such news. In addition, the news titled

"Tatars, Turks not to leave Crimea again" published

by Hurriyet (2014) also used framing by describing a

similar narrative. The news tells about the valour of

the Crimean Tatar leader, Mustapha Dzemilev, who

is called the Gandhi of the Crimea. The article

illustrates how the Tatar struggle and how Turkey

cares for their cause. The news has an effect on

increasing Turkish sympathy for the Crimean Tatar,

coupled with religious sentiments in which Turkish

society is made up of a Muslim majority of over 70%.

The vast amount of public opinion sympathetic to

the Crimean Tatars was then voiced in the form of

actions demanding that the Erdogan regime be firm

against the annexation of the Crimea, and for it to

condemn Russia for what has happened, particularly

related to ethnic Tatars in the Crimea seen of as being

increasingly oppressed. On the other hand, public

opinion also leads Turkey to a closer relationship with

the Ukraine, as Ukraine is seen of as the legitimate

ruler of the Crimean peninsula. The author sees that

this factor really does affect how Erdogan runs its

country's policy to make criticisms of Russia,

although Turkey has a considerable national interest

in Russia especially in economic corridors. The

authors assume so because despite Turkey's

condemnation of Russia, the condemnation is merely

a criticism. Turkey decided not to impose tough

sanctions on Russia as Western countries did. It was

impressed that the criticism was merely the

The Inﬂuence of Mass Media on Turkish Foreign Policy in Responding to the Crimean Annexation by Russian Federation in 2014

311

government's attempt to placate the public. Relations

between Russia and Turkey are still normal, as

evidenced by several meetings between Erdogan and

Putin to discuss the case. The relationship can be said

to have been good, at least until Turkey shot down a

Russian fighter jet.

4 CONCLUSION

Based on the above explanation, it can be concluded

that the Turkish response, which openly denounced

the Crimean annexation by Russia was, in essence,

not an initiative of the Erdogan regime but something

that came from outside the government. From the

point of view of the LoA of mass media and public

opinion, and of the political order in Turkey where the

opposing side of the government controls one of

Turkey's greatest media groups, it is likely to be

enormous if the foreign policy is the result of media

coverage that has succeeded in influencing the

masses. In this case, Turkish mass media proclaimed

the narrative that the Crimean Tatars suffered so

badly at the repression at the hands of Russia. The

news has succeeded in influencing the Crimean

Tatars living in Turkey as well as the Muslim

community in general to sympathise with what

happened in the Crimea and ultimately, it seeks to

suppress the Erdogan regime to take decisive action

against Russia.

REFERENCES

Diuk, Nadia. 2014. ”EUROMAIDAN: Ukraine's Self-

Organizing Revolution”, in World Affairs, Vol. 176,

No. 6. Pp. 9-16.

Gilboa, Eytan (2005) “Global Television News and Foreign

Policy: Debating the CNN Effect”, International

Studies Perspectives, (6), pp. 325-341.

Hurriyet. 2014. Tatars, Turks not to leave Crimea again.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/murat-yetk

in/tatars-turks-not-to-leavecrimea-again-65108.

Accessed in 14 December 2017.

Hurriyet. 2015. Aydın Doğan against continued debate with

President Erdoğan in Turkey’s ‘painful period.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/aydin-dogan-again

st-continueddebate-with-president-erdogan-in-turkeys-

painful-period-89210. Accessed in 14 December 2017.

Hurriyet. 2016. Ankara reiterates support for Crimean

Tatars, decries Russian ‘occupation.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/ankara-reiterates-

support-for-crimean-tatarsdecries-russian-occupation-

99315. Accessed in 14 December 2017.

Kaya, Rasit dan Baris Cakmur. 2010. “Politics and the Mass

Media in Turkey”, in Turkish Studies, 11:4, 521-537.

Lavrov, Sergey. 2016. Russia’s Foreign Policy in a

Historical Perspective. [Online] http://eng.global

affairs.ru/number/Russias-Foreign-Policy-in-a-Histori

cal-Perspective18067. Accessed in 19 April 2017.

Naveh, Chanan (2002) “The Role of the Media in Foreign

Policy Decision-Making: A Theoretical Framework”,

Conflict & Communication Online, 1(2), pp. 1-14.

Onuch, Olga. 2015. “Brothers Grimm or Brothers

Karamazov: The Myth and the Reality of How Russians

and Ukrainians View the Other”, in Ukraine and

Russia: People, Politics, Propaganda and

Perspectives. Bristol: E-IR Pubishing.

ICoCSPA 2018 - International Conference on Contemporary Social and Political Affairs

312