It’s Much More than a Park – Mainstream and Social Media Coverage of Istanbul’s Gezi Park

When I first heard about Gezi Park in Istanbul (May 28, 2013), most media portrayed an environmental story—protesters against a government plan to replace one of the last urban green spaces with a shopping center. At the same time, on Facebook, one source kept posting, “It’s not about a park.” When the movement grew to become clearly anti-governmental, media began quoting Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who described protesters as looters and extremists. Really?

Urban parks represent places for free assembly and the exchange of ideas as well as for recreation. This particular Turkish park has additional historic symbolism as a place of resistance. The movement has grown (it’s not about a park but about a repressive government) and involves a cross-section of ideologies and socioeconomic groups. By most all accounts, the protesters have not been involved in vandalism or destruction.

My concern--the fragmented views provided by much of our mainstream media. The Turkish Gezi Park story took place at a time when US media focused on “monster” tornadoes, which caused deaths, injuries and destruction in the Midwest. International news focused on Syria. In Turkey itself, its own media buried the Gezi stories under programming on animals or cooking, according to the Christian Science Monitor and social media posts.

How can we be ensured an accurate perspective of the news? Many of the mainstream media do not fulfill their role as Fourth Estate, or watchdog. Most of us have to dig for stories. Much of my understanding of issues is supplemented by social media—Facebook or blogs or Youtube—all of which provide a less-circulated perspective, the context or links to stories I might have missed that are not about parks per se.

2012 Presidential Debate--Talk v. Actions

The media coverage of the debate makes it sound like voters will base their decision on a 90-minute televised match. That is, on rhetoric/ talk rather than actions. In the aftermath, a lot of the media coverage of the second debate reads like a sports story--a play-by-play account with a few quotes or sound bites then comments about ratings or polls or candidate performance. Covering the real story, which involves examinations of previous administrations, requires some serious fact checking and historical research, something many members of the media seem loathe to do. Maybe their corporate sponsors fear flak. . . . But still, some media (both US and foreign) provided in-depth analyses. And reader forums pointed to things to keep in mind: the positive contributions of the Obama administration in terms of health care, military exit strategies, Wall Street reforms, tax reductions and job creation. . . . positive contributions in the face of the "legacy" left by previous administrations. Here are just a few of the rights voters should strive to protect: - to an education (which should not be based on ability to pay tuition but on ability) - to affordable healthcare - to taxation based on income/assets rather than ability to find loopholes. BTW, taxes are not bad. Education, a clean environment, security, arts and culture, mass transit and jobs/ training are among the things that have to be financed. - to civil rights and equality. . . . --to a clean environment (safe water, protection of natural resources, educational outreach) At this point in the campaign process, many of us are tiring of street corners and airways dominated by political ads, which present one side of issues. The value of televised debates--that candidates can challenge vague assertions. Given that Americans are pretty much a sports-oriented group, maybe we should continue to cover politics, using this approach. And maybe voters should think more about talk v. actions. Would any university hire a football coach based on promises or on his past performance?