Uluslararası Yayıncılık ve Dijital Kamu Diplomasisi Bağlamında Türkiye İmajının İletişimsel İnşası: TRT World İçerikleri Üzerine Nitel Bir Analiz

Abstract

Bu çalışma, TRT World’ün dijital haber içeriklerinde Türkiye imajının uluslararası yayıncılık ve dijital kamu diplomasisi bağlamında nasıl inşa edildiğini incelemektedir. Araştırmanın kapsamını, TRT World’ün resmî web sitesinde 1 Haziran 2025 ile 31 Mayıs 2026 tarihleri arasında yayımlanan ve Türkiye’nin uluslararası görünürlüğüyle ilişkili yazılı haber metinleri oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı, bu içeriklerde Türkiye’nin uluslararası kamuoyuna hangi diplomatik roller, temsil biçimleri ve anlatı eksenleri üzerinden sunulduğunu ortaya koymaktır. Araştırma, uluslararası kamuoyunun Türkiye’ye ilişkin algısını ölçmemekte; TRT World haberlerinde iletişimsel olarak kurulan temsil biçimlerini incelemektedir. Araştırmada nitel içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Ölçüt örnekleme yoluyla belirlenen 120 haber metni MAXQDA programı desteğiyle kodlanmış; analiz sonucunda 6 ana tema ve 36 kod oluşturulmuştur. Bulgular, TRT World içeriklerinde Türkiye imajının doğrudan tanıtıcı bir söylemle değil, haber metinlerinde süreklilik kazanan diplomatik aktörlük biçimleriyle kurulduğunu göstermektedir. Türkiye; barış arayan, diyalog ve müzakereyi öne çıkaran, ara buluculuk rolü üstlenen, bölgesel krizlerde istikrar arayan, lider ve kurumsal diplomasi yoluyla görünürlük kazanan, insani sorumluluk vurgusu yapan ve küresel meselelerde pozisyon alan bir aktör olarak temsil edilmektedir.

Keywords

• TRT World
• Dijital Kamu Diplomasisi
• Türkiye İmajı
• Uluslararası Yayıncılık
• Uluslararası İletişim

Ethical Statement

Çalışma kapsamında herhangi bir insan katılımcıdan veri toplanmamış, anket, görüşme, odak grup görüşmesi, deney, gözlem veya kişisel veri toplamaya yönelik herhangi bir araştırma tekniği kullanılmamıştır. Araştırmada yalnızca kamuya açık biçimde yayımlanmış haber metinleri incelenmiş; kişisel veri, özel nitelikli kişisel veri ya da bireylerin mahremiyetini ihlal edebilecek herhangi bir içerik kullanılmamıştır. Bu nedenle söz konusu çalışma, etik kurul onayı gerektiren araştırmalar kapsamında değerlendirilmemektedir. Çalışmanın tüm aşamalarında bilimsel araştırma ve yayın etiği ilkelerine uygun hareket edilmiş; kullanılan kaynaklara gerekli atıflar yapılmış ve akademik dürüstlük ilkelerine bağlı kalınmıştır.

The Communicative Construction of Türkiye's Image in the Context of International Broadcasting and Digital Public Diplomacy: A Qualitative Analysis of TRT World Content

Abstract

This study examines how the image of Turkey is constructed within TRT World’s digital news content, specifically within the context of international broadcasting and digital public diplomacy. The scope of the research comprises written news texts published on TRT World’s official website between June 1, 2025, and May 31, 2026, that relate to Turkey’s international visibility. The study aims to reveal the diplomatic roles, modes of representation, and narrative frameworks through which Turkey is presented to the international public in this content. The research does not measure international public perception of Turkey; rather, it analyzes the communicatively constructed modes of representation found in TRT World news reports. A qualitative content analysis method was employed. A total of 120 news texts, selected via criterion sampling, were coded using the MAXQDA software; the analysis resulted in the identification of six main themes and 36 codes. The findings indicate that the image of Turkey in TRT World’s content is constructed not through explicitly promotional discourse, but through forms of diplomatic agency that are consistently portrayed across the news texts. Turkey is represented as an actor that seeks peace; prioritizes dialogue and negotiation; assumes a mediating role; pursues stability in regional crises; gains visibility through leadership and institutional diplomacy; emphasizes humanitarian responsibility; and takes a stance on global issues.

Keywords

• TRT World
• Türkiye
• Digital Public Diplomacy
• Communication
• Country Image
• International Broadcosting

Ethical Statement

No data was collected from any human participants in this study; no surveys, interviews, focus groups, experiments, observations, or any research techniques aimed at collecting personal data were used. The study only examined publicly available news articles; no personal data, sensitive personal data, or any content that could violate the privacy of individuals was used. Therefore, this study is not considered to be among the studies requiring ethical committee approval. Throughout all stages of the study, adherence to scientific research and publication ethics principles was ensured; necessary citations were made to the sources used, and the principles of academic integrity were maintained.

References

1. Adesina, O. S. (2017). Foreign policy in an era of digital diplomacy. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), Article 1297175. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1297175
2. Altınay, H. (2008). Turkey’s soft power: An unpolished gem or an elusive mirage? Insight Turkey, 10(2), 55–66.
3. Anholt, S. (2007). Competitive identity: The new brand management for nations, cities and regions. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230627727
4. Bjola, C., & Holmes, M. (Eds.). (2015). Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice. Routledge.
5. Bjola, C., Cassidy, J., & Manor, I. (2019). Public diplomacy in the digital age. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 14(1–2), 83–101. https://doi. org/10.1163/1871191X-14011032
6. Cull, N. J. (2008). Public diplomacy: Taxonomies and histories. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 31–54. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311952
7. Elswah, M., & Howard, P. N. (2022). Where news could not inspire change: TRT World as a party broadcaster. Journalism, 23(10), 2079–2095. https://doi. org/10.1177/14648849211033444
8. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993. tb01304.x

9. Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2010). The future of U.S. public diplomacy: An uncertain fate. Brill.
10. Gilboa, E. (2001). Diplomacy in the media age: Three models of uses and effects. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 12(2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592290108406201
11. Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 55–77. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0002716207312142
12. Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. SAGE Publications.
13. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi. org/10.1177/1049732305276687
14. Kalın, İ. (2011). Soft power and public diplomacy in Turkey. PERCEPTIONS: Journal of International Affairs, 16(3), 5–23.
15. Kaneva, N. (2011). Nation branding: Toward an agenda for critical research. International Journal of Communication, 5, 117–141.
16. Karadeniz, Y. (2022). Türkiye’nin kamu diplomasisinde TRT World’ün rolü. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Akademi Dergisi, 4(9), 560–578. https://doi.org/10.47994/ usbad.1090133
17. Khatib, L., Dutton, W., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Public diplomacy 2.0: A case study of the U.S. digital outreach team. The Middle East Journal, 66(3), 453–472. https:// doi.org/10.3751/66.3.14
18. Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
19. Kunczik, M. (1997). Images of nations and international public relations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
21. Manor, I. (2019). The digitalization of public diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-04405-3
22. Manor, I. (2019). The digitalization of public diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-04405-3
23. Manor, I., & Huang, Z. A. (2022). Digitalization of public diplomacy: Concepts, trends, and challenges. Communication and the Public, 7(4), 167–175. https://doi. org/10.1177/20570473221138401
24. Melissen, J. (Ed.). (2005). The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
25. Merkouraki, M. (2024). Turkey’s digital public diplomacy in the age of uncertainty. International Journal of International Relations, Media and Mass Communication Studies, 10(2), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.37745/ijirmmcs.15/ vol10n24154
26. Mertoğlu, S. (2023). The role of social media in digitalized public diplomacy: An example of Turkish image in TRT World’s Twitter account. In T. Elitaş (Ed.), Maintaining international relations through digital public diplomacy policies and discourses (pp. 215–230). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-5822-8.ch016
27. Miskimmon, A., O’Loughlin, B., & Roselle, L. (2013). Strategic narratives: Communication power and the new world order. Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315871264
28. Morales, P. S. (2021). International broadcasters and country image management: Comparing audience perceptions of China, Russia and Iran in Latin America. Global Media and China, 6(1), 100–115. https://doi. org/10.1177/2059436420960882
29. Nye, J. S., Jr. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy, 80, 153–171. https://doi.org/10.2307/1148580
30. Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.
31. Nye, J. S., Jr. (2008). Public diplomacy and soft power. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 94–109. https://doi. org/10.1177/0002716207311699
32. Nye, J. S., Jr. (2009). Get smart: Combining hard and soft power. Foreign Affairs, 88(4), 160–163.
33. Nye, J. S., Jr. (2018, January 24). How sharp power threatens soft power: The right and wrong ways to respond to authoritarian influence. Foreign Affairs. https:// www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-01-24/how-sharp-powerthreatens-soft-power
34. Öksüz, O., & Budak, E. (2022). Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği’ne üyelik sürecinde bir kamu diplomasisi enstrümanı olarak medyanın rolü: TRT World örneği. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 21(2), 429–465. https://doi.org/10.32450/ aacd.1226880
35. Pamment, J. (2013). New public diplomacy in the 21st century: A comparative study of policy and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203096734
36. Price, M. E. (2003). Public diplomacy and the transformation of international broadcasting. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 21(1), 51–85.
37. Rawnsley, G. D. (2015). To know us is to love us: Public diplomacy and international broadcasting in contemporary Russia and China. Politics, 35(3–4), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.12104
38. Roselle, L., Miskimmon, A., & O’Loughlin, B. (2014). Strategic narrative: A new means to understand soft power. Media, War & Conflict, 7(1), 70–84. https://doi. org/10.1177/1750635213516696
39. Saleem, N. (2007). U.S. media framing of foreign countries image: An analytical perspective. Canadian Journal of Media Studies, 2(1), 130–162.
40. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE Publications.
41. Snow, N., & Taylor, P. M. (Eds.). (2009). Routledge handbook of public diplomacy. Routledge
42. TRT World. (2025, September 4). Türkiye renews pledge to spearhead peace efforts to end Russia-Ukraine war. https://www.trtworld.com/article/73f09fba0f45
43. TRT World. (2026a, March 3). Türkiye working to resolve problems through ‘peace-oriented diplomacy’: Erdogan. https://www.trtworld.com/ article/84d1ad791d2b
44. TRT World. (2026b, April 18). Turkish President Erdogan meets leaders of Slovenia, Comoros, DRC at Antalya Diplomacy Forum. https://www.trtworld.com/ article/f4a838293b48
45. TRT World. (2026c, April 19). Türkiye expands diplomatic role as Antalya Diplomacy Forum hosts global leaders: Fidan. https://www.trtworld.com/article/ b06d37a087e3
46. TRT World. (2026d, May 9). Türkiye opposes wider regional spread of US-Iran conflict, Erdogan says. https://www.trtworld.com/article/c63516aca96d
47. Vincent, E. I. (2016). International broadcasting as a tool of international diplomacy. New Media and Mass Communication, 46, 45–52.
48. Walker, C., & Ludwig, J. (2017, November 16). The meaning of sharp power: How authoritarian states project influence. Foreign Affairs. https://www. foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2017-11-16/meaning-sharp-power
49. Wang, C. L., Li, D., Barnes, B. R., & Ahn, J. (2012). Country image, product image and consumer purchase intention: Evidence from an emerging economy. International Business Review, 21(6), 1041–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ibusrev.2011.11.010
50. Wilson, E. J., III. (2008). Hard power, soft power, smart power. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 110–124. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0002716207312618
51. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (12. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
52. Zaharna, R. S. (2010). Battles to bridges: U.S. strategic communication and public diplomacy after 9/11. Palgrave Macmillan.
53. Zaharna, R. S., Arsenault, A., & Fisher, A. (Eds.). (2013). Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy: The connective mindshift. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203082430
54. Morales, P. S. (2021). International broadcasters and country image management: Comparing audience perceptions of China, Russia and Iran in Latin America. Global Media and China, 6(1), 100–115. https://doi. org/10.1177/2059436420960882