Çerçeveleme Kuramı Bağlamında Kahramanmaraş Merkezli Depremler Sonrası Kültürel Miras Haberlerinin Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, 6 Şubat 2023 tarihinde 11 ili etkileyen Kahramanmaraş merkezli depremlerin ardından, kültürel miras haberlerinin medyada nasıl temsil edildiğini inceledik. Bu araştırmada çerçeveleme teorisi bağlamında kültürel mirasın medyadaki yansımalarını ele alarak, tarihi eserler ve sit alanlarının deprem sonrası medyada nasıl ele alındığını analiz etmeyi amaçladık. Bu nedenle, farklı sahiplik yapılarına ve ideolojik bakış açılarına sahip olmaları nedeniyle seçilen üç farklı gazeteden (Cumhuriyet, Milliyet ve Yeni Şafak) toplam 158 haberi içerik analizi yöntemiyle inceledik. Analizde, haberlerin sunum biçimi, çerçeveleme teknikleri, görsel materyallerin kullanımı ve haberlerde yer alan aktörler gibi çeşitli unsurları ele aldık. Bulgular, medyada sorumluluk, olay etkisi, insani ilgi ve ekonomik perspektifler gibi farklı çerçevelerin kullanıldığını ortaya koymuş ve gazetelerin editoryal politikalarına bağlı olarak değişen anlatım yaklaşımlarını göstermiştir. Sonuçlar, medyanın kamuoyu farkındalığını şekillendirmedeki rolünü, zamanla azalan medya ilgisini ve kültürel mirasın korunması konusunda uluslararası angajmanın yetersizliğini vurgulamaktadır. Çalışma, kültürel varlıkların korunması ve restorasyonu konusunda medyanın sosyal sorumluluğuna dair önemli çıkarımlar sunmakta ve afet olaylarının ötesinde sürdürülebilir bir duyarlılığın gerekliliğini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• kültürel miras
• deprem
• haber analizi
• çerçeveleme kuramı

An Analysis of Cultural Heritage News after the Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes in the Context of Framing Theory

Öz

In this study, we analyze the representation of cultural heritage in Turkish media following the devastating earthquakes on 6 February 2023, which struck Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye and impacted 11 provinces. This research focused on the portrayal of cultural heritage newswithin the context of framing theory, aiming to examine how historical artifacts and sites were discussed in the media post-earthquake. We employed content analysis to review 158 articles from three major newspapers (Cumhuriyet, Milliyet, and Yeni Şafak), selected for their diverse ownership and ideological perspectives. In the analysis, we explored various aspects such as the presentation style, framing techniques, use of visual materials, and the actors featured in the news. Findings highlight the frames used by the media, including responsibility, event impact, human interest, and economic perspectives, revealing differing narrative approaches based on the newspapers’ editorial policies. The results underscore the media’s role in shaping public awareness, the decline in coverage over time, and the lack of international engagement in preserving cultural heritage. The study offers insights into the media’s social responsibility in highlighting the preservation and restoration of cultural assets, emphasizing the need for sustained sensitivity beyond disaster events.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• cultural heritage
• earthguake
• news analysis
• framing theory

Kaynakça

1. Aslantaş, M. (2023). Disaster communication from traditional media to social media, society and disaster relationship, Cukurova University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 32 (2), 776 -789 DOI:10.35379/cusosbil.1333879 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/cusosbil
2. Atabek, N. & Uztuğ, F. (1998). Framing and highlighting in the news, Journal of Kurgu, 15, 96-105.
3. Başaran İnce, G. (2010). Media and collective memory, Culture and Communication, 13(1), 9-29, ISSN 1301-7241
4. Berelson, Bernard. 1952. Content analysis in communication research. Free Press.
5. Boydstun, A. E., Glazier, R. A., & Pietryka, M. T. (2013). Playing to the crowd: Agenda control in presidential debates. Political Communication, 30 (2), 254-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609 .2012.737423.
6. Bozkurt, S. G. (2023). Analysis of lost cultural landscape values in Hatay after the Kahramanmaraş earthquake, Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications, [Special issue] 8, 124-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.1331367.
7. Cereci S. (2019, April). Preservation of cultural heritage through media, ERASMUS international academic research symposium in educational and social sciences (5-6 April 2019 İzmir, Türkiye) Proceedings. Publishing director Muhammet Özcan (Director), Prof. Dr. Hasan Babacan & Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yüksel Akay Unvan & Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tuğrul Özcan (Eds.) Asos, pp: 7-18.
8. Çalış, S. (2010). UNESCO and the masterpieces of the oral and intangible heritage of humanity and their effect on cultural policies,[Unpublished Master’s Thesis] Gazi University Institute of Social Sciences, Department of Turkish Folklore.

9. ÇEKÜL Foundation, (2010). From local to national, from national to universal, protection awareness development process. Stil.
10. Engin, A. (2023, 15 May). Levant corridor and earthquake. Jounal of Aktüel Arkeoloji, Retrieved, April 11, 2024 from https://aktuelarkeoloji.com.tr/kategori/arkeoloji/arkeoloji-levant-koridoru-ve-deprem
11. Erdem, T. (2022). The perspective of the international press to the Turkish economy from the perspective of framing theory: The case of Al Jazeera and BBC, Journal of Communication and Social Studies, 2(1), 43-57. https://doi.org/10.29228/itamder.57814.
12. Erdoğan, İ. (2014). News framing: theory and typology. Marmara Journal of Communication, 13(13), 35-52.
13. EUR-OPA, (2024). Cultural Heritage, Retrieved, 9 May 2024, from https://www.coe.int/en/web/ europarisks/cultural-heritage1.
14. Emekli, G., (2005). The policies of the tourism in European Union and cultural Tourism in Turkiye, Aegean Geographical Journal, 14, 99-107.
15. Entman, R.M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4), 51-58. DOI:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
16. Fiske, J. (1996). Introduction to communication Studies. (S. İrvan, Trans. ) Bilim ve Sanat.
17. Gavilán, M. T. N. (2011). Framing the news: From political conflict to peace. How the framing theory and political context model can enhance the peace journalism model. Journal of Latin American Communication Research, 1(2), 48-61.
18. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Harper & Row.
19. Gross, T. (2002). Anthropology of collective memory: Estonian national awakening revisited, Trames, 4(6), 342-354.
20. Güler, K. (2023). Thinking about cultural heritage with the destruction caused by the earthquake, Architecture, ISSN 1300-4212.
21. Jokilehto, J. (2005). Definition of cultural heritage references to documents in history, ICCROM Working Group ‘Heritage and Society’. (Originally for ICCROM, 1990) Revised for CIF: 15 January 2005). 1-47.
22. Kadıoğlu, M., (2014). Social capacity development and community training, ISMEP Guide Books.
23. Kwak, H., Jisun A., & Yong-Yeol A. 2020. A systematic media frame analysis of 1.5 million New York Times articles from 2000 to 2017. In 12th ACM Conference on Web Science, pages 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1145/3394231.3397921.
24. Macnamara, Jim. (2018). Content analysis. In P. Napoli (Ed.) Mediated communication, 191-211, De Gruyter Mouton. DOI:10.1515/9783110481129-012.
25. Muşkara, Ü. (2017). Applications of new media on cultural heritage. Erdem (73), 89-110. https://doi. org/10.32704/erdem.471009
26. Nora, P. (2006), Sites of Memory, (trans. M. E. Özcan), (Original work publication date: 1984), cited in Zelan, Z. (2022). The Use of New Media as a Cultural Memory Transfer Tool: Kültür Portalı Sample, Journal of Eren, 1(1), 14-31.
27. ODTÜ TAÇDAM (2023). Historical environmental values research and application center, postearthquake documentation of Antakya’s multilayered cultural heritage, damage assessment and assessment, (unpublished report). METU, Retrieved, 24 March 2024 from https://tacdam. metu.edu.tr.
28. Oğuz, M. Ö., (2007). UNESCO Culture and Türkiye, Milli Folklor, 73, 5-11.
29. Shinki, C. Haoyi, X. Masashi, M. (2023). Backscattering characteristics of SAR images in damaged buildings due to the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. Journal of Remote Sensing (15), 2181, 2-18, https://doi.org/10.3390/ rs15082181
30. Türkbay, Ö. Ç., (2021). The relation of the cultural heritage protection with human rights law and the cultural heritage as a right. Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Law Journal, (23) 2, DOI: https:// doi.org/10.33717/deuhfd.998243
31. UNESCO, Retrieved, April 15, 2024 from https://www.unesco.org/en/world-heritage
32. UNESCO Turkish National Commission (2024). Retrieved, April 15, 2024 https://unesco.org.tr/
33. Uzun Varnacı, F., Somuncu, M. (2023). Evaluation of the Antakya urban cultural heritage after the earthquakes, Ankara University Journal of Environmental Sciences, 10(1), 9-23.
34. Uzunel, A.T. (2023). Earthquakes and archaeological heritage sites: the case of February 6 earthquakes in Türkiye, The Journal of International History Researches, 7(1), 57– 77.
35. Ünal, G.Z., (2014). Protection of cultural heritage, ISMEP, Guide Books.
36. Vural, A.M., Boztepe Taşkıran, H., Türkoğlu, S., Sarı, M., et al., (2022). Traditional media in risk communication: Analysis of newspaper news on the sample of earthquake disasters, Journal of Selçuk Communication, 15(2), 672-701, DOI: 10.18094/ JOSC. 1116550.
37. Zelan, Z. (2022). The the use of new media as a cultural memory transfer tool: Kültür portalı sample, Journal of Eren, 1(1), 14-31.