Tweet
Armenian genocide and publishing decisions
Los Angeles Times, CA
Jan 25 2007
Turkey, Armenia, and the Armenian diaspora are in an uproar over the
cold-blooded execution-style murder of outspoken journalist Hrant
Dink, a man who until being shot in the head in broad daylight on a
busy sidewalk street was best known for braving jail time by
insisting that modern Turkey finally recognize Ottoman Turkey's
genocide of roughly 1.2 million Armenians nearly 100 years ago. This
chronology of L.A. Times coverage tells the story in headlines:
Journalist slain in Turkey
L.A. Armenians saddened but not surprised over editor Hrat Dink's
shooting
L.A. Armenians denounce slaying of Turkish editor
Teenager held in journalist's killing
Militant confesses in journalist death
Armenians say goodbye to a hero
On Jan. 23, we published an Op-Ed by Hugh Pope, the Istanbul-based
author of Sons of the Conquerors: the Rise of the Turkic World,
entitled "Armenia haunts the Turks again: The killing of a prominent
Armenian journalist last week further widens the gap between Turkey
and Europe." Excerpt:
What killed Dink, in short, is the Turkish republic's inability to
deal with the Armenian issue - the charge that its predecessor state,
the Ottoman Empire, killed 1.2 million Armenian men, women and
children in a genocide that began in 1915.
Official Turkey is stuck in a rut of denial. Discussing the great
omissions on the subject in Turkey's public education remains taboo.
Efforts to open archives and to "leave it to the historians" lead to
dead ends, partly because a scholarly debate won't assuage diaspora
Armenians who demand formal acknowledgment of the genocide, and
partly because of Turkey's anti-free-speech laws - most notoriously
Penal Code Article 301, with its catchall penalties for "denigrating
Turkishness."
We published three letters today on Dink, including one directly
referring to Pope's piece:
Hugh Pope wishes for Armenians to compromise, not realizing that you
can't compromise when you are dead.
VAHE KHACHATURIAN
La Canada Flintridge
Khachaturian certainly wasn't the only person upset. After the jump,
read a form letter we've been receiving, and some clarifications
about The Times' policies when discussing the Armenian genocide.
Here's the text of the letter:
Dear Editorial Staff Members:
I was shocked by the editorial by Hugh Pope entitled "Armenia Haunts
the Turks Again" which ran on Tuesday, Jan. 22nd in the Los Angeles
Times. As a lifelong resident of Los Angeles and reader of the Los
Angeles Times I am ashamed that my newspaper would publish an
editorial which puts forth views regarding the Armenian Genocide
which run contrary to the current standards of legitimate public
discourse. I agree with Pope's views regarding Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code, as well as the fact the Republic of Turkey should
reconsider its denialist activities, however the fundamental premise
of Pope's editorial rests on an argument of denial of the Armenian
Genocide and is equivocally unacceptable for publication. This denial
has long been used by the Turkish government to assuage the world's
declarations of Ottomon Turkish complicity in Genocide.
While I respect that the Los Angeles Times would want to show
alternate viewpoints, it should be clear that certain viewpoints are
outside of the realm what is accepted as legitimate and relevant.
Turkish Denial is clearly outside of this realm. When published in
the Los Angeles Times, it appears to be legitimate. Other newspapers
throughout the United States, most notably the New York Times, have
long since moved beyond humoring individuals that hold this belief.
Many of them have adopted policies to officially refer to the events
of 1915-1923 as Genocide, not an alleged or so-called Genocide. Why
hasn't the Los Angeles Times adopted this policy?
Compounding this error is the fact that it was allowed to run at
perhaps one of the most inappropriate times in recent history. The
murder of Hrant Dink, editor of the Agos newspaper, has become a
force of unification in Turkey. Turks and Armenians have marched
through the streets of Istanbul proclaiming "We are all Armenian," an
event that would have been considered impossible just a week ago.
Tens of thousands of Turkish citizens mourned at his funeral, and
rose up his ideals for a Turkey which honors human rights and the
right of free speech. Amidst these historic events your newspaper
decided to run an editorial that from its title to its content paints
Turkey a victim of Armenian and Western interference. While Turks and
Armenians are enjoying a unity long unseen, Pope's editorial served
to be a derisive tool to incite division. This should be considered
highly irresponsible and wholly naïve given that the Los Angeles
Times serves the largest Armenian-American community in the United
States.
If issue is indicative of the nature of the LA Times' international
coverage, I can no longer rely on its quality and should have to look
elsewhere for world news.
I ask you to reconsider your standards regarding the Armenian
Genocide so that editorials of this kind won't be published in the
future.
With best regards,
A Concerned Armenian American
This letter raises many issues about the newspaper, the most relevant
of which is: Op-Eds (and their cousins, Letters) have a wider band of
acceptable style and word choice than perhaps any other type of
content category in the paper, including Editorials. This is for
obvious reasons; they are the often controversial political opinions
of people who disagree about fundamental issues and have their own
way of expressing it. The Times news pages and unsigned editorials
have a style guide, which reads partly as follows regarding the
Armenian genocide:
The Armenian genocide during and after World War I is a historical
fact, and the word "genocide" can be used without qualification in
referring to it. The Turkish side argues that whatever happened, it
was not genocide, but there is a large body of historical evidence
and authoritative recent research that finds genocide a fully
appropriate term. Even some Turkish scholars now agree with this
view. [...]
Suggested standard language is along these lines:
"The Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1918 claimed the lives of about 1.2
million Armenians under the Ottoman Empire, which became the modern
republic of Turkey. The Turkish government disputes that a genocide
took place."
Unsigned editorials, which reflect the opinion of the Editorial
Board, do not share the news pages' more rigorous (and space-filling)
sense of being scrupulously fair to all sides and remaining neutral.
Instead, we just get to the point of our stance. Our stance regarding
the Armenian genocide is roughly as follows: It happened, Turkey
should admit it happened, and the United States (of all countries!)
should lead the way in using the G-word. As a July 16, 2006 editorial
begins:
What happens when you refer to Turkey's 1915-1923 genocide of
Armenians, accurately, as "genocide"? In Turkey, you face a possible
three-year jail term, even if it wasn't you using the term but a
character in your novel. In the United States, you just lose your job
as ambassador to Armenia.
But to get back to the multi-forwarded form letter from A Concerned
Armenian American, there is a misreading of Hugh Pope's column:
Pope's editorial rests on an argument of denial of the Armenian
Genocide and is equivocally unacceptable for publication.
Why "misreading"? Because nowhere in the Pope Op-Ed does he deny the
genocide. The closest he comes is this passage:
Turks cannot believe the sincerity of foreign parliaments which,
usually ill-informed about the Turkish case, give in to Armenian
diaspora lobbying for genocide declarations.
That's not a denial. Close, but no cigar.
We'd be happy to hear arguments to the contrary, and any arguments at
all, in the comments.
To post your comments, go to
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2007/01/ar menian_genoci.html
--Boundary_(ID_kVY23ZstN3U4jhl MnAHatw)--
Los Angeles Times, CA
Jan 25 2007
Turkey, Armenia, and the Armenian diaspora are in an uproar over the
cold-blooded execution-style murder of outspoken journalist Hrant
Dink, a man who until being shot in the head in broad daylight on a
busy sidewalk street was best known for braving jail time by
insisting that modern Turkey finally recognize Ottoman Turkey's
genocide of roughly 1.2 million Armenians nearly 100 years ago. This
chronology of L.A. Times coverage tells the story in headlines:
Journalist slain in Turkey
L.A. Armenians saddened but not surprised over editor Hrat Dink's
shooting
L.A. Armenians denounce slaying of Turkish editor
Teenager held in journalist's killing
Militant confesses in journalist death
Armenians say goodbye to a hero
On Jan. 23, we published an Op-Ed by Hugh Pope, the Istanbul-based
author of Sons of the Conquerors: the Rise of the Turkic World,
entitled "Armenia haunts the Turks again: The killing of a prominent
Armenian journalist last week further widens the gap between Turkey
and Europe." Excerpt:
What killed Dink, in short, is the Turkish republic's inability to
deal with the Armenian issue - the charge that its predecessor state,
the Ottoman Empire, killed 1.2 million Armenian men, women and
children in a genocide that began in 1915.
Official Turkey is stuck in a rut of denial. Discussing the great
omissions on the subject in Turkey's public education remains taboo.
Efforts to open archives and to "leave it to the historians" lead to
dead ends, partly because a scholarly debate won't assuage diaspora
Armenians who demand formal acknowledgment of the genocide, and
partly because of Turkey's anti-free-speech laws - most notoriously
Penal Code Article 301, with its catchall penalties for "denigrating
Turkishness."
We published three letters today on Dink, including one directly
referring to Pope's piece:
Hugh Pope wishes for Armenians to compromise, not realizing that you
can't compromise when you are dead.
VAHE KHACHATURIAN
La Canada Flintridge
Khachaturian certainly wasn't the only person upset. After the jump,
read a form letter we've been receiving, and some clarifications
about The Times' policies when discussing the Armenian genocide.
Here's the text of the letter:
Dear Editorial Staff Members:
I was shocked by the editorial by Hugh Pope entitled "Armenia Haunts
the Turks Again" which ran on Tuesday, Jan. 22nd in the Los Angeles
Times. As a lifelong resident of Los Angeles and reader of the Los
Angeles Times I am ashamed that my newspaper would publish an
editorial which puts forth views regarding the Armenian Genocide
which run contrary to the current standards of legitimate public
discourse. I agree with Pope's views regarding Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code, as well as the fact the Republic of Turkey should
reconsider its denialist activities, however the fundamental premise
of Pope's editorial rests on an argument of denial of the Armenian
Genocide and is equivocally unacceptable for publication. This denial
has long been used by the Turkish government to assuage the world's
declarations of Ottomon Turkish complicity in Genocide.
While I respect that the Los Angeles Times would want to show
alternate viewpoints, it should be clear that certain viewpoints are
outside of the realm what is accepted as legitimate and relevant.
Turkish Denial is clearly outside of this realm. When published in
the Los Angeles Times, it appears to be legitimate. Other newspapers
throughout the United States, most notably the New York Times, have
long since moved beyond humoring individuals that hold this belief.
Many of them have adopted policies to officially refer to the events
of 1915-1923 as Genocide, not an alleged or so-called Genocide. Why
hasn't the Los Angeles Times adopted this policy?
Compounding this error is the fact that it was allowed to run at
perhaps one of the most inappropriate times in recent history. The
murder of Hrant Dink, editor of the Agos newspaper, has become a
force of unification in Turkey. Turks and Armenians have marched
through the streets of Istanbul proclaiming "We are all Armenian," an
event that would have been considered impossible just a week ago.
Tens of thousands of Turkish citizens mourned at his funeral, and
rose up his ideals for a Turkey which honors human rights and the
right of free speech. Amidst these historic events your newspaper
decided to run an editorial that from its title to its content paints
Turkey a victim of Armenian and Western interference. While Turks and
Armenians are enjoying a unity long unseen, Pope's editorial served
to be a derisive tool to incite division. This should be considered
highly irresponsible and wholly naïve given that the Los Angeles
Times serves the largest Armenian-American community in the United
States.
If issue is indicative of the nature of the LA Times' international
coverage, I can no longer rely on its quality and should have to look
elsewhere for world news.
I ask you to reconsider your standards regarding the Armenian
Genocide so that editorials of this kind won't be published in the
future.
With best regards,
A Concerned Armenian American
This letter raises many issues about the newspaper, the most relevant
of which is: Op-Eds (and their cousins, Letters) have a wider band of
acceptable style and word choice than perhaps any other type of
content category in the paper, including Editorials. This is for
obvious reasons; they are the often controversial political opinions
of people who disagree about fundamental issues and have their own
way of expressing it. The Times news pages and unsigned editorials
have a style guide, which reads partly as follows regarding the
Armenian genocide:
The Armenian genocide during and after World War I is a historical
fact, and the word "genocide" can be used without qualification in
referring to it. The Turkish side argues that whatever happened, it
was not genocide, but there is a large body of historical evidence
and authoritative recent research that finds genocide a fully
appropriate term. Even some Turkish scholars now agree with this
view. [...]
Suggested standard language is along these lines:
"The Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1918 claimed the lives of about 1.2
million Armenians under the Ottoman Empire, which became the modern
republic of Turkey. The Turkish government disputes that a genocide
took place."
Unsigned editorials, which reflect the opinion of the Editorial
Board, do not share the news pages' more rigorous (and space-filling)
sense of being scrupulously fair to all sides and remaining neutral.
Instead, we just get to the point of our stance. Our stance regarding
the Armenian genocide is roughly as follows: It happened, Turkey
should admit it happened, and the United States (of all countries!)
should lead the way in using the G-word. As a July 16, 2006 editorial
begins:
What happens when you refer to Turkey's 1915-1923 genocide of
Armenians, accurately, as "genocide"? In Turkey, you face a possible
three-year jail term, even if it wasn't you using the term but a
character in your novel. In the United States, you just lose your job
as ambassador to Armenia.
But to get back to the multi-forwarded form letter from A Concerned
Armenian American, there is a misreading of Hugh Pope's column:
Pope's editorial rests on an argument of denial of the Armenian
Genocide and is equivocally unacceptable for publication.
Why "misreading"? Because nowhere in the Pope Op-Ed does he deny the
genocide. The closest he comes is this passage:
Turks cannot believe the sincerity of foreign parliaments which,
usually ill-informed about the Turkish case, give in to Armenian
diaspora lobbying for genocide declarations.
That's not a denial. Close, but no cigar.
We'd be happy to hear arguments to the contrary, and any arguments at
all, in the comments.
To post your comments, go to
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2007/01/ar menian_genoci.html
--Boundary_(ID_kVY23ZstN3U4jhl MnAHatw)--