Değişen Gündem ve Türkiye: 2009 YılıMedya Gündemi Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Yıl 2012, Sayı: 28, 109 - 124, 01.08.2012

Mustafa Yılmaz , Aynur Köse

Öz

Enformasyonun haber formatındaki üretimi ve dağıtımıişlevini yerine getiren medya, kamusal alandaki tartışmaların en önemli belirleyicisi ve taşıyıcısıolarak kilit bir rol üstlenmektedir. Buna bağlıolarak haber medyasında öne çıkan konular ve bu konuların haberleştirilmesinde kullanılan dilsel pratikler genişbir inceleme alanıolarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmada ise medya gündeminin çok sık değiştiği ya da değiştirildiği yönündeki tartışmaların hız kazandığıbir yıl olarak 2009 yılında, yaygın medyanın değişmez konu başlıkları, bu konulardan oluşanmedya gündemini kimin belirlediği, nasıl şekillendirdiği, gündemin değişim sıklığıve hızı, haber sunumunda öne çıkan çerçeveler gibi sorulara yanıtlar aranmıştır. Bu çerçevede 1 Ocak-31 Aralık 2009 tarihleri arasında yaygın medyaya mensup Akşam, Cumhuriyet, Hürriyet, Milliyet, Posta, Radikal, Sabah, Taraf, Yeni Şafak ve Zaman gazetelerinin manşet ve sürmanşetleri içerik analizi yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda 2009 yılında en fazla gündemde kalan konuların Ergenekon davasına ilişkin gelişmeler ve Kürt açılımıtartışmalarıolduğu saptanmıştır. Bu konularıilk defa manşetlerine taşıyan ve uzun süre gündemde kalmasınısağlayan gazeteler ise Zaman, Taraf ve Radikal’dir. Çalışmanın ortaya çıkardığıtemel bulgu, gazetelerin ateşleyici olayların dışında kalan zamanlarda kendi yayın politikalarıve ideolojik duruşlarıile gündemlerini belirledikleri şeklindedir. Nitekim haberde ideolojik kutuplaşmaya göre kendi düşüncelerini destekleyecek sözcükleri seçme, cümleleri kurma ve sunma davranışıCumhuriyet, Zaman ve Yeni Şafak gazetelerinde yoğun olarak görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Medyagündemi, içerikanalizi, Türk basını, başlık

Changing Agenda And Turkey: A Study On The Media Agenda Of 2009

Öz

Media which enables production and distribution of information as news format plays crucial role in public discussions as a determinant and carrier of them. Accordingly, featured issues in news media and linguistic practices used to report them as news appear as a rich research field. In this study in 2009 when discussions regarding rapid changing or changed media agenda increased it was aimed to seek answers to questions regarding consistent themes of the mainstream media as to who sets the agenda covering these themes and how they are shaped and regarding the frequency and rate of the change in the agenda and commonly used frames in the presentation of news. In the research it was also intended to seek answers to questions such as “whether is there a strong agenda setter, that is, a ‘pilot’ newspaper and specifically in which subjects is this newspaper determinant?”, “which factors are effective in agenda setting?”, “specifically in what kind of news subjects are media advocacy that can be considered to be an endeavor to influence public opinion and politics by advocating only particular aspects of the subject and partisan agenda as reflection of ideological slants displayed?” and “what are the general attributes of the frameworks used in covering news?”. A content analysis was employed to expose which issues were focused on within the contents of the most prominent news items headlines and subheadings that were presented on the front pages and are considered to be show case of the newspapers within one-year period. Through employing content analysis one of the methods which can be applied to systematically analyze content of media texts, both quantitative data as to which subjects became prominent in 2009 which newspaper was the agendasetting in those subjects that is, which newspaper was “the pilot of the Turkish press”, how long these issues remained on the agenda and how many times the agenda changed over the course of that year and qualitative data as to whether there were interactions or significant differences among the newspapers examined in terms of media agenda were obtained. The headlines and subheadings of the mainstream media -Akşam, Cumhuriyet, Hürriyet, Milliyet, Posta, Radikal, Sabah, Taraf, YeniŞafak and Zaman- within the time period of 1th January 2009 - 31th December 2009, were examined. Within this scope at the end of the analysis, it was found that the agenda changed 2772 times and the change degree was 76%. It was established that all of the newspapers under scrutiny provided the same subject in their headlines for 20 days in 2009. At the end of the research it was determined that the “Ergenekon case” related developments and “Kurdish initiative” related discussions remained on agenda for the longest time period. The newspapers which published these subjects in headlines for the first time and made them remain on agenda for a long time are Zaman, Taraf and Radikal. The topic called “Ergenekon case” was covered with various headlines throughout the year. When examining which newspaper firstly covers the news regarding “Ergenekon case”, that is, which newspaper is “pilot newspaper” in such news items, it is Taraf. Zaman has the lowest degree in agenda change frequency because of being the newspapers covering issues of “Ergenekon case” in headlines with the highest frequency and duration of time, Posta has the lowest degree of agenda change frequency in covering the prominent topics of 2009 as the top main agenda however it is the newspaper covering most diversified agenda issues in magazinish, dramatically and popular ways in headlines and thus it appears as the newspaper with the most diversified agenda issues 86% . Within the scope of mainstream media’s sense of journalism, immediate trigger events have priority to be covered as being newsworthy. Within this context, the fundamental finding the study revealed is that newspapers set the agenda on the basis of their publishing policies and ideological stands in times when there are no trigger events. The newspapers while covering and providing these top agenda items, carried out this differently and acted in accordance with their ideological stands what we term partisan agenda and media advocacy attitude to highlight particular aspects of an issue. Other subjects remained on the agenda in 2009 had importance mainly within the scope of trigger events and they were off the agenda when they lost their popularity in conjecture. Throughout the year, only the developments which took place within the scope of “Ergenekon case” and debates on “Kurdish initiative” remained on agenda. It was determined that leading newspapers in these subjects are Zaman, Taraf and Radikal which are occasionally determinant both in media agenda and in political and public agenda. It was found that Radikal is the newspaper playing leading role in coverage of debates regarding “Kurdish initiative”. The newspaper was influential in naming of the process and had an endeavor to create a cognitive awareness allowing the subject remain on the agenda for the longest period. It was assessed that these newspapers try to mold public opinion in accordance with their ideological stands and publishing policies and take on a task of being the pilot of the Turkish press. Besides, having a publishing policy which covers mainly domestic affairs and top agenda topics from a different angle, Cumhuriyet occupies an important position in opinion journalism. The principal finding the research revealed is that they set the agenda on the basis of their publishing policies and ideological stands in times when there are no trigger events. Thus selections of words, formation of sentences and presentation of them which bear their ideas on the basis of the ideological polarization are heavily seen in Cumhuriyet, Zaman and YeniŞafak. What is mainly important here rather than the similarities in situating these issues on top agenda are the differences in coverage of the issues by the newspapers. This is because differences among the newspapers in selection of particular subjects among existing information, highlighting, stressing, attributing various meanings, evaluating, covering or excluding and ignoring are important in terms of containing references to publishing policies and ideological stands

Anahtar Kelimeler

Media agenda, content analysis, Turkish press, headlines

Kaynakça

• Altheide, L. David. Qulitative Media Analysis, London, Sage, 1996.
• Alver, Füsun. Gazetecilik ve Kuramları, İstanbul, Kalkedon, 2011.
• Atabek, N. & Ferruh, U. (1998). “Haberlerde Çerçeveleme ve Öne Çıkarma”, Anadolu University Journal of Faculty of Communication Sciences- Kurgu, 15: 1-10.
• Berelson, Bernard. Content Analysis in Communication Research, New York, Hafner, 1952.
• Bilgin, Nuri. İçerik Analizi,İzmir, Ege UniversityLiteratureFaculty Publications, 2000.
• Dearing, James W. & Rogers Everet M. Communication Concepts 6: Agenda-Setting, Thousand Oaks, Sage, 1996.
• Durfee, J. L. (2006). “ ‘Social Change’ and ‘Status Quo’ Framing Effects on Risk Perception: An Exploratory Experiment”, Science Communication, 27 (4): 459-495.
• Entman, R. M. (1991). “Framing US Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of The KAL And Iran Air Incidents”, Journal of Communication, 41 (4): 6-27.
• Entman, R. M. (1993). “Framing: TowardClarification of a FracturedParadigm”, Journal of Communication, 43 (4): 51-58.
• Entman, R. M. (2003). “Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame After 9/11”, Political Communication, 20: 415-432.
• Hall, S. (1993). “Kültür, Medya ve İdeolojik Etki”, Medya İktidar İdeoloji, Translation: Mehmet Küçük, Ankara, Ark Publications, pp. 169-210.
• Hartley, John. Understanding News, London and New York, Routledge, 1982.
• Kahneman, D. (2002). “Maps of Bounded Rationality: A Perspective On Intuitive Judgment And Choice”, Prize Lecture, pp.449-489.
• Lang K. & Gladys E. L. (1981). “The Mass Media and Voting”, Reader in Public Opinion and Mass Communication, Ed. Morris Janowitz and Paul Hirsch, New York, Free Press, pp.15-21.
• Lippman, Walter. Public Opinion, New York, The Free Press, 1964.
• McCombs M. E. &Shaw, D. L. (1972). “TheAgenda-SettingFunction of Mass Media”, ThePublicOpinionQuarterly, 36: 176-187.
• McCombs, Maxwell. E. SettingtheAgenda: TheMass Media andPublicOpinion, Cambridge, PolityPress, 2004.
• Münir, Metin (31 Ekim 2009). “Gündemci Baba”, Milliyet Newspaper.
• Nelson, T. E. &Clawson, R. A. &Oxley Z. M. (1997). “Media Framing of a CivilLibertiesConflictanditsEffect on Tolerance”, TheAmericanPoliticalScienceReview, 91 (3): 567-583.
• Nunan, David. Discourse Analysis, London, Penguen, 1993.
• Scheufele, D. A. (1999). “Framing as a Theory of Media Effects”, Journal of Communication, 49 (1): 103- 122.
• Severin, Werner J. ve Tankard James W. İletişim Kuramları: Kökenleri, Yöntemleri ve Kitle