Fréderike Geerdink
Several media outlets have interviewed me about the decision of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) to dissolve itself and to disarm, after the decisions of the 12th PKK congress were published yesterday. While dealing with established media, two of my fields of expertise come together in a very interesting way: the Kurdish issue, and media and power. I conclude once again that as long as media don’t reflect on their own position towards power, they will never understand the dynamics of the Kurdish armed movement. And that has far-reaching consequences.
One of the questions I was asked, is what we can expect now when it comes to the clearance of military bases in the mountains in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The journalist asking me this question, was referring to bases of the PKK, of course – after all, it’s the PKK that took the decision to disband and disarm. So even though it is a logical question, the first answer that came to my mind is: “Well, yes, we have to see now if Turkey is willing to dismantle the many military bases and outposts it has been establishing in Kurdistan in Iraq over the years. For now, there are no indications Turkey wants this.”
Accurate
This is hardly ever the angle that media take. In general, the PKK is seen as the actor that needs to end the violence, not the state. The PKK has for decades been framed as a terrorist organisation, and all the reporting about it has to fit into that framing. If they suddenly shifted away from that and became critical to power, the continuity of their reporting would be in jeopardy. News consumers wouldn’t understand it anymore if all of a sudden the PKK was considered to be the terrorist organisation rather than the state. It would be more accurate, but would fall outside the way of thinking that the media themselves helped create.
All of this has to do with power. Journalists working for established western media consider themselves to be professionals who hold power to account. In general, however, they refuse to see that they are themselves part of the dominant group in society, as mostly white, middle-class men (and women, but the higher up the tree, the more men). Historically, they have aligned themselves with power and even made themselves fully dependent on it.
Objective
After all, in order for these media to survive, they have to serve an audience that wants to buy their media and can afford the products of the advertisers in those media. Mind you, this business model came into being in the US more than a century ago. The group they started serving at the time were white middle-class and higher-class men. This was the group that was the most interested and invested in politics and business: women didn’t have the right to vote yet, and black men and women only secured their right to vote in the 1960s (and they are often still disenfranchised). Reporting that serves this group in society, has over time become the equivalent of ‘objective reporting’, also in other western countries. In other words: what counts as ‘objective’, is actually the white male dominant gaze at reality.
Groups like the PKK, which wage a legitimate struggle against oppression by the very groups that established media mainly serve, are looked at through this same ‘objective’ lens. If the establishment says these are terrorists, this is the ‘objective’ truth. The actual truth, which these journalists are supposed to report, is that the PKK hasn’t carried out a terrorist attack in many, many years. Nevertheless, this fact is never added to the standard sentence in every article about the PKK, which still is: ‘The PKK is designated as a terrorist group in Turkey, the EU and the US.’
Sentence
The state, on the other hand, has targeted civilians throughout the war, which started in 1984. Also in the last couple of months, many civilians have been deliberately killed in Kurdistan in Iraq and in Kurdistan in Syria [Kurdish-led areas of northern Syria], including journalists. How about adding a standard sentence to every article, equivalent to the one I just mentioned, saying: ‘The Turkish state has for decades targeted civilians and committed war crimes’?
Conclusion: the reporting about the Kurdish issue and particularly about the PKK in established media, can never be fully truthful. They lack a proper analysis of power and their own position towards power. They serve power without being fully aware of that, and do a disservice to the public interest, which should be the focus of their work.
Breaking news
One interview I was going to do, was cancelled because there were not enough concrete steps to discuss, the editor told me. I agreed, and asked what kind of concrete steps would trigger their interest. The answer didn’t surprise me: the PKK handing over weapons, for example, or the dismantling of PKK’s military bases. While I would say: the real breaking news would be any concrete step taken by the state. The release of political prisoners, for example, but even more so steps towards a fundamental solution for the Kurdish issue, like sincere work towards a democratic constitution. But that’s not what they were looking for.
The decades-long framing of the Kurdish issue as a matter of terrorism hampers truthful journalism in the public interest, and as a consequence hampers the solution of Turkey’s most important problem. It is highly significant that the PKK decided to disband itself and end the armed struggle, but without proper journalism about it offering the full perspective and truth, journalism will be complicit in the possible failure of this delicate process. A painful truth.
Fréderike Geerdink is an independent journalist. Follow her on Bluesky (or X) or subscribe to her acclaimed weekly newsletter Expert Kurdistan.
