Göç Diplomasisinde Medyanın Rolü: TRT Haber’in Gönüllü Geri Dönüş Haberleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Abstract

Göç, devletlerin dış politika ve kamu diplomasisi stratejilerinde giderek daha görünür hâle gelmekte; özellikle gönüllü geri dönüş söylemleri uluslararası iletişim ve diplomatik anlatıların önemli bir bileşeni olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Bu araştırma, Esed rejiminin devrilmesinin ardından TRT Haber’de yayımlanan gönüllü geri dönüş haberlerinde Türkiye’nin göç diplomasisinin medya söylemi aracılığıyla nasıl çerçevelendiğini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmanın veri setini, 8 Aralık 2024 sonrasında TRT Haber’in internet sitesinde yayımlanan ve “Suriyeli”, “geri dönüş”, “gönüllü geri dönüş”, “güvenli geri dönüş” ve “geçici koruma” anahtar kelimeleri kullanılarak sistematik biçimde ulaşılan toplam 44 haber oluşturmaktadır. Veriler, MAXQDA programı kullanılarak nitel içerik analizi ile çözümlenmiştir. Analiz sonucunda haber söyleminin; Türkiye’nin göç diplomasisinin tarihsel ve siyasal dayanaklarının inşası, Türkiye’nin göç yönetişiminde model ülke olarak sunulması ve göç diplomasisini güçlendiren temsiller olmak üzere üç ana tema etrafında yapılandığı belirlenmiştir. Haberlerde Türkiye; göç yönetiminde tarihsel sorumluluk üstlenen, kurumsal kapasitesi güçlü ve uluslararası iş birliğini önceleyen bir aktör olarak temsil edilmektedir. Gönüllü geri dönüş söylemi ise insani sorumluluk, güvenlik, uluslararası hukuk ve bölgesel istikrar ekseninde meşrulaştırılmaktadır. Ayrıca geri dönüş süreci, Türkiye’nin göç yönetişimi kapasitesini görünür kılan ve uluslararası konumunu destekleyen diplomatik bir iletişim çerçevesi içinde sunulmaktadır. Bulgular, TRT Haber’in gönüllü geri dönüş haberlerinin yalnızca göç olgusunu aktaran metinler olmadığını, aynı zamanda Türkiye’nin göç diplomasisini üreten ve dolaşıma sokan stratejik anlatılar oluşturduğunu göstermektedir. Bu yönüyle çalışma, göç diplomasisi literatürünü medya ve stratejik iletişim perspektifiyle genişletirken, devlet destekli haber kuruluşlarının diplomatik söylem üretimindeki rolünü görünür kılmaktadır.

Keywords

• Göç Diplomasisi
• Medya Söylemi
• Gönüllü Geri Dönüş
• Göç Yönetişimi
• TRT Haber

Ethical Statement

Bu araştırma, TRT Haber'in kamuya açık internet sitesinde yayımlanan haber metinlerinin doküman incelemesine dayalı nitel analizini içermektedir. Araştırmada insan katılımcılardan veri toplanmamış, kişisel veri işlenmemiş ve herhangi bir müdahalede bulunulmamıştır. Bu nedenle araştırma için etik kurul onayı gerekmemektedir. Araştırma sürecinde bilimsel araştırma ve yayın etiği ilkelerine uyulmuş; çalışma, Helsinki Bildirgesi'nin ilgili etik ilkeleri doğrultusunda yürütülmüştür.

The Role of Media in Migration Diplomacy: An Analysis of TRT Haber’s Coverage of Voluntary Return

Abstract

Migration has become increasingly visible in states’ foreign policy and public diplomacy strategies, with voluntary return narratives emerging as a prominent component of international communication and diplomatic discourse. This study aims to examine how Türkiye’s migration diplomacy is framed through media discourse in TRT Haber’s coverage of voluntary returns following the fall of the Assad regime. The dataset consists of 44 news reports published on TRT Haber’s website after 8 December 2024, identified through a systematic search using the keywords “Syrian,” “return,” “voluntary return,” “safe return,” and “temporary protection.” The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with MAXQDA. The findings reveal that the news discourse is structured around three main themes: the construction of the historical and political foundations of Türkiye’s migration diplomacy, the positioning of Türkiye as a model country in migration governance, and representations that reinforce migration diplomacy. Within these news reports, Türkiye is portrayed as an actor that assumes historical responsibility in migration management, possesses strong institutional capacity, and prioritizes international cooperation. Voluntary return discourse is legitimized through the themes of humanitarian responsibility, security, international law, and regional stability. Furthermore, the return process is presented within a framework of diplomatic communication that highlights Türkiye’s migration governance capacity and reinforces its international standing. The findings demonstrate that TRT Haber’s coverage of voluntary returns does not merely report on migration; it also produces and circulates strategic narratives that construct Türkiye’s migration diplomacy. In this respect, the study extends the migration diplomacy literature from the perspective of media and strategic communication while highlighting the role of state-supported news organizations in the production of diplomatic discourse.

Keywords

• Migration Diplomacy
• Media Discourse
• Voluntary Return
• Migration Governance
• TRT Haber

Ethical Statement

This study involves a qualitative document analysis of news articles published on the publicly accessible website of TRT Haber. No data were collected from human participants, no personal data were processed, and no intervention involving individuals was conducted. Therefore, ethical approval was not required for this study. The research was conducted in accordance with the principles of research and publication ethics and complied with the relevant ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

References

1. Adamson, F. B., & Tsourapas, G. (2019). Migration diplomacy in world politics. International Studies Perspectives, 20(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/eky015
2. Arceneaux, P., & Powers, S. (2020). International broadcasting: Public diplomacy as a game in a marketplace of loyalties. In N. Snow & N. J. Cull (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public diplomacy (2nd ed., pp. 50–63). Routledge.
3. Arceneaux, P., & Powers, S. (2020). International broadcasting: Public diplomacy as a game in a marketplace of loyalties. In N. Snow & N. J. Cull (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public diplomacy (2nd ed., pp. 50–63). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429465543-8
4. Avşar, Z. (2005). Kamu hizmeti yayıncılığı, uluslararası yaklaşımlar ve Türkiye Radyo ve Televizyon Kurumu. Ege Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Yeni Düşünceler Hakemli E-Dergisi, 1, 93–124.
5. Chouliaraki, L., & Vestergaard, A. (Eds.). (2022). Routledge handbook of humanitarian communication. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315363493
6. Cohen, Y. (2012). Media diplomacy: The foreign office in the mass communications age. Routledge.
7. Çevik, S., & Sevin, E. (2017). A quest for soft power: Turkey and the Syrian refugee crisis. Journal of Communication Management, 21(4), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-04-2017-0042
8. Çiçek, A., & Turan, A. (2023). Public Diplomacy, Migration And Refugee Politics: The Case Of Turkey. R&S-Research Studies Anatolia Journal, 6(4), 584–613. https://doi.org/10.33723/rs.1359339

9. Demiryontar, B. (2021). Accession conditionality and migration diplomacy: Turkey’s dual identity in migration policy negotiations with the EU. European Politics and Society, 22(1), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2020.1719741
10. Dhanesh, G. S., & Rahman, N. (2021). Visual communication and public relations: Visual frame building strategies in war and conflict stories. Public Relations Review, 47(1), 102003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.102003
11. Doudaki, V., & Boubouka, A. (2017, 16–20 Temmuz). Sources in the news as agents of legitimation [Konferans sunumu]. IAMCR 2017, Cartagena, Kolombiya.
12. Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012). “But the UN said so …”: International organisations as discursive authorities. Global Society, 26(4), 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2012.710596
13. 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
14. Entman, R. M. (2008). Theorizing mediated public diplomacy: The US case. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(2), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208314657
15. Fargues, É., & Sredanovic, D. (2025). Introduction: The Dynamics of Migration Policy Implementation: The Frontline and Beyond. Social Policy & Administration, 59(4), 603–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13160
16. Fernández-Molina, I., & Hernando De Larramendi, M. (2022). Migration diplomacy in a de facto destination country: Morocco’s new intermestic migration policy and international socialization by/with the EU. Mediterranean Politics, 27(2), 212–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2020.1758449
17. Fernández-Molina, I., & Tsourapas, G. (2024). Understanding migration power in international studies. International Affairs, 100(6), 2461–2479. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae230
18. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. Pantheon Books.
19. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). Pantheon Books.
20. Fröhlich, R., & Jungblut, M. (2021). Epistemic evidence in strategic-persuasive communication: On the effects of investing in the truthfulness of NGOs’ strategic crisis and conflict communications. International Journal of Communication, 15, 2968–2986.
21. Geiger, M., & Pécoud, A. (2010). The politics of international migration management. In M. Geiger & A. Pécoud (Eds.), The politics of international migration management (pp. 1–20). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230294882_1
22. Gilboa, E. (2001). Diplomacy in the media age: Three models of uses and effects. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 12(2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592290108406201
23. Gilboa, E. (2002). Global communication and foreign policy. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 731–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02571.x
24. Gisselquist, R. M., & Tarp, F. (2019). Migration governance and policy in the global south: introduction and overview. International Migration, 57(4), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12623
25. Golan, G. J. (2013). An integrated approach to public diplomacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(9), 1251–1255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213487711
26. Green, B., & Pécoud, A. (2025). Talking about migration in times of crisis: A textual analysis of narratives by IOM and UNHCR on migrants and refugees. American Behavioral Scientist, 69(6), 707–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642231182899
27. İçduygu, A., & Demiryontar, B. (2022). Türkiye’de devlet ve Suriyeli mülteciler: çelişkili politikalar ve araçsal rasyonellik. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(Özel Sayı), 316–334. https://doi.org/10.46928/iticusbe.1182299
28. İçduygu, A., & Üstübici, A. (2014). Negotiating mobility, debating borders: Migration diplomacy in Turkey-EU relations. In H. Schwenken & S. Ruß-Sattar (Eds.), New border and citizenship politics (pp. 44–59). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137326638_4
29. Kaya, A. (2020). Migration as a leverage tool in international relations: Turkey as a case study. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 17(68), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.856870
30. Kırık, A. M. (2024). Türkiye’de dijital yayıncılığın gelişim süreci ve fırsatları. TRT Akademi, 9(21), 578–591. https://doi.org/10.37679/trta.1493635
31. Korkut, U. (2016). Pragmatism, moral responsibility or policy change: the Syrian refugee crisis and selective humanitarianism in the Turkish refugee regime. Comparative Migration Studies, 4(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-0150020-9
32. Köksoy, E. (2015). Kamu Diplomasisi ve Mülteci İlişkileri Türkiye’nin Mülteci İlişkilerinin Uluslararası Medya Yansımaları. Marmara İletişim Dergisi, (24), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.17829/midr.20152419998
33. Küçükakbulut, E. (2025). Suriye Türkmenlerinin İç Savaş Sonrası Geri Dönüş Eğilimleri. UPA Strategic Affairs, 6(2), 3–26.
34. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
35. Mertoğlu, S., & Alanka, Ö. (2023). Reflecting Turkey’s Attitude and Benevolence Towards Syrian Refugees to the World Through Digitalized Public Diplomacy. In Maintaining International Relations Through Digital Public Diplomacy Policies and Discourses (pp. 206–214). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-5822-8.ch015
36. Morgül, K. (2023). Sending “our brothers” back “home”: Continuity and change in President Erdoğan’s discourse on Syrian refugees. New Perspectives on Turkey, 69, 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2023.23
37. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
38. O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
39. 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
40. Özdal, B., & Argalı, M. (2022). Bir modern diplomasi türü olarak göç diplomasisi. Diplomasi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 18–38.
41. Özdora, E. (2020). Discursive construction of Syrian refugees in shaping international public opinion: Turkey’s public diplomacy efforts. Discourse & Communication, 14(3), 294–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481319893769
42. Pamment, J. (2014). The mediatization of diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 9(3), 253–280. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-12341279
43. Polletta, F., & Redman, N. (2020). When do stories change our minds? Narrative persuasion about social problems. Sociology Compass, 14(4), e12778. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12778
44. Rawnsley, G. D. (2015a). 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
45. Rawnsley, G. D. (2015b). Chinese international broadcasting, public diplomacy and soft power. In Routledge handbook of Chinese media (pp. 460–475). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315758350
46. Robinson, C. (2020). Measuring ‘well-governed’ migration: The IOM’s migration governance indicators. In M. Geiger & A. Pécoud (Eds.), The International Organization for Migration: The new ‘UN Migration Agency’ in critical perspective (pp. 123–143). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-030-32976-1_6
47. Scannell, P. (1989). Public service broadcasting and modern public life. Media, Culture & Society, 11(2), 135–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/016344389011002002
48. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529682571
49. Şahin Mencütek, Z. (2021). Governing practices and strategic narratives for Syrian refugee returns. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(3), 2804–2826. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feaa121
50. Taşcıoğlu, R. (2024). Türkiye’de yayıncılığın tarihsel gelişimi: Matbuattan medyaya, devlet tekelinden özel yayıncılığa kısa bir bakış. TRT Akademi, 9(21), 544553. https://doi.org/10.37679/trta.1493605
51. Tauscher, S. (2025). Dijital Kamu Diplomasisi ve Türk Dijital Diasporası: Yeni Medya Aracılığıyla Ulusötesi Habitusun İnşası. İmgelem, (Yeni Medya Çalışmaları), 527–562. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1752536
52. Temir, H. (2023). Türkiye’de göçün dış politika perspektifinden değerlendirilmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Teknik Araştırmalar Dergisi, (21), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.59768/sustad.2023.3
53. Thouez, C. (2019). Strengthening migration governance: the UN as ‘wingman’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(8), 1242–1257. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1441604
54. Tolay, J. (2023). Interrogating and broadening the emerging narrative on migration diplomacy: a critical assessment. Millennium: International Studies, 51(1), 354–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298221139589
55. Tsourapas, G. (2021). Migration diplomacy in the Middle East and North Africa: Power, mobility, and the state. Manchester University Press.
56. van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310600687908
57. van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/9781-137-07299-3
58. Yılmaz, D., & Günay, M. A. (2025). Suriye Devriminin Türk Yazılı Basınında Temsili. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (40), 175–204. https://doi.org/10.54600/igdirsosbilder.1719627