MOST Greek and Turkish Cypriot media conform to the official perspectives of their side when selecting news stories and the angle to present them, according to research released this week.
“We tried to interpret the content of the media and our understanding of what they say,” said Christophoros Christophorou, research coordinator and editor of the report, funded by the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO). “Of course this proved difficult in many cases, as a discourse has more than one meaning and it can often be interpreted in more than one ways.”
The research scrutinised three periods of recent Cypriot political history: the presentation of the first Anan Plan in late 2002, the Talat/Papadopoulos meeting in 2007 and the first Christofias/Talat meeting in 2008. The research looked at the editorials and main stories of six Greek Cypriot newspapers, 10 to 12 Turkish Cypriot newspapers, and five TV channels within each community.
Presenting the results of the research at the Fulbright Centre on Tuesday June, its authors, Christophorou, Synthia Pavlou and Sanem ?ahin, all stressed the power of the media to influence developments in the Cyprus problem.
An obvious similarity between Greek and Turkish Cypriot media is that they both use the technique of the ‘us/them’ discourse, clearly defining ‘the other’ in their news reports and editorials, the authors said.
In its majority the Greek Cypriot press presents and promotes a strong tie between Greece and Cyprus, including Greece and the Greeks in its definition of ‘us’. Such classifications can vary from media to media. During the periods studied, Simerini and Machi newspapers said the Greeks were ‘our brothers’, whereas Haravgi never used the expression ‘the Greek side’.
As a rule, Greek Cypriot dailies did not regard the Turkish Cypriot community as ‘the other’. Occasionally some dailies such as Machi, Phileleftheros and Simerini viewed Turkey, the Turkish Cypriot leadership and Turkish Cypriots as one and the same, using the expression ‘the Turkish side’ to refer to all three.
For the Turkish Cypriot press the ‘us/them’ discourse is not a stable category. ?ahin pointed out that depending on the political allegiances of newspapers or TV channels, ‘the other’ was defined differently. For publications that were unfavourable towards the Anan plan in 2002, the Greek Cypriots were considered ‘the other’. For publications that supported the plan, however, it was Denkta? and his administration that formed ‘the enemy’ and ‘the wrong-doer’.
The study showed that both the Greek and Turkish Cypriot press became slightly more optimistic in the period after the Christofias/Talat meeting in 2008.
?ahin also mentioned the striking similarity of content within the Turkish Cypriot press. “We hear the same people, the same institutions and the same things from all the media. What are the journalists doing? What are they there for? There are no exclusive or well-researched stories.” She said this is because many of the stories featured in the Turkish Cypriot media are only slightly edited versions of TAK (the Turkish Cypriot news agency) articles.
The lack of a critical approach when reporting political developments was attributed to limited resources and a lack of motivation.
“There is a lack of fair, accurate and balanced reporting,” ?ahin said. “In some cases, the media are scared to challenge the official line, fearing that they will be labelled as ‘traitors’.”
“This study must be received as the very first step in the examination and analysis of the Cypriot media,” concluded Christophorou. “Much more is needed for us to have a broader view of the role of the media in Cyprus.”
One of the study’s conclusions was that, for the media to be able to positively influence the public and help stir Cyprus towards a solution, new journalistic norms and habits must be developed.
Pavlou ended her presentation on blunt note.
“Do not blindly believe everything you see or hear,” she said.
