Armenian genocide and publishing decisions
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.
hHere'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.
I think you are way off base when you claim that Pope is not denying the Armenian Genocide. Where Pope says "...usually ill-informed about the Turkish case, give in to Armenian diaspora lobbying for genocide declarations" is a clear reference to denial. The "Turkish case" he is referring to is nothing but absolute denial.
Hugh Pope is on the Turkish government's payroll if not the CIA's and always has been even when he was working in Istanbul for the Wall Street Journal. His reporting has always been nothing but extremely biased toward the Turkish government.
Just because he wrote a book and was a journalist bought and paid for by the Turkish government does not qualify him for consideration as a legitamate commentator in your opinion pages. You should have higher standards than that and interestingly when I have approached your paper about an opinion piece about the Armenian Genocide issue your editor has not shown any interest. Along comes Hugh Pope, and all of a sudden you roll out the red carpet. Please...
Posted by: Zanku Armenian | January 25, 2007 at 12:36 PM
The pressure from Turkish side to distort historical facts of Armenian Genocide is nothing new, but for the western correspondent of a major American newspaper to give-in to that pressure and twist facts is not only revolting, but also horrifying. Imagine for a second if someone will question the tragic events of Perl Harbor or September 11 as anything but absolutely factual documented historical experiences? Why should anything pertaining to the Armenian Genocide be questioned and muddied now?
Posted by: Aren Arax | January 25, 2007 at 02:12 PM
I would like to see Hugh Pope utter the same rubbish when someone denies September 11. Go ahead Mr. Pope, ask the families of those victims to compromise and deal with the unjust deaths of their loved ones.
Posted by: Anna Berberian | January 25, 2007 at 07:41 PM
Mr. Pope's article covertly denies Genocide by attempting to create a balanced and objective discourse. Nonetheless, his repulsive motives are transparent to many readers. It is disappointing and distasteful that the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board allowed this sort of perpetuation of denial.
Mr. Pope's article is titled " Armenia Haunts the Turks Again." This fatalistic tone depicts Turkey as a poor, helpless victim. Ironically, Mr. Hrant Dink, an editor and writer of Armenian descent was shot and killed in broad daylight by a Turkish youth closely associated with the right wing party. Needless to mention, Mr. Dink encouraged Turkey to recognize the Armenian Genocide.
The L.A. Times has clarified its view on the Armenian Genocide. Now, it is time to practice what they preach. The Armenian Genocide is not up for debate. Anything "close" to denial should be unacceptable by writers of integrity.
Before publishing an article by Mr. Pope, the L.A. Times editorial staff had the responsibility to pause and ask themselves what they would have done had Mr. Pope victimized Germany and denegrated the Jewish Holocaust as a mere "charge".
Denial of genocide is a "double genocide". By publishing Mr. Pope's article, the L.A. Times was guilty of encouraging denial and thereby owes all survivors of Genocide an apology.
Posted by: alice tavoukjian | January 25, 2007 at 11:50 PM
It is not the sentence you quoted as coming close to denial, "but no cigar" that is the most shocking section of Hugh Pope's Op-Ed, but the following paragraph, which recycles most of the Turkish denialist arguments, i.e., that it was not a genocide, that Armenians deserved whatever happened to them, that Armenians "stabbed Turkey in the back," that Turks too suffered losses, etc. It is a pure, unalterated reproduction of Turkish denialist arguments which have long been disproved by historians, including a few courageous Turkish ones.
"The Turks have reasons to feel victimized. Christian powers don't apologize much for ethnic cleansing carried out between 1821 and 1923, when they rolled back the borders of the Ottoman Empire. Millions of Muslims were killed. In 1915, World War I was raging. Turkey was again under attack from Russia in the east and Britain and France in the west. The Armenian leadership openly sided with Turkey's enemies, demanded a state on Ottoman land and formed anti-Ottoman militias. Many Turks were killed by these Armenian groups."
Kersam Mavian
Posted by: Kersam Mavian | January 26, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Alice -- Point of exceedingly minor bureaucratic clarification: It's not the "Editorial Board" that approves Op-Eds. It's the Op-Ed editor(s). The former comes up with political positions (i.e., the U.S. should only appoint an ambassador to Armenia who acknowledged the genocide by name); the latter solicits, edits and approves a wide range of opinion.
Posted by: Matt Welch | January 26, 2007 at 11:53 AM
The Jan. 23rd Op-Ed by Hugh Pope is nothing but denial and delegitimization of the Armenian Genocide. As many people here have posted, Pope uses classic Turkish denial arguments: minimization of death toll, the Armenian's deserved it for siding with the Russians, Turks were killed as well. Simply saying that, "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", doesn't relinquish the responsibility of the LA Times to publish rationale and relevant material. I would hope that the LA Times would not publish an Op-Ed by the President of Iran denying the Jewish Holocaust in the name of spirited debate on controversial issues. In fact, I know the LA Times wouldn’t publish such an Op-Ed because it would be a slap in the face to Jews around the world.
Yes, the Armenian Genocide is a controversial issue. Not because of its factual validity, but because the US Government, along with the UK, deny and distort the Armenian Genocide to appease the Republic of Turkey. The controversy is in the fact that there is a double standard when it comes to the Armenian Genocide and that political rationale precedes moral duty. This double standard fuels and emboldens the Republic of Turkey to continue its denial campaigns and prolong the Armenian Genocide by not allowing the psyche of the Armenian people to heal.
The brutal assassination of Hrant Dink is simply the continuation of the Armenian Genocide. The same hatred and nationalism that was used in 1915 to destroy an entire ethnic group is again being used to silence critics of official Turkish policy. Hugh Pope should be shunned, not published, for towing the official line of Turkey. By publishing an Op-Ed that even comes close to getting the denial cigar is nothing less then enabling the denial and continuation of the Armenian Genocide.
The LA Times needs to extend a formal apology to the Armenian community, not just in Los Angeles, but around the world.
Posted by: Areen Ibranossian | January 26, 2007 at 01:32 PM
As the author of the article that initiated the e-mail writing campaign [The Largest Minority Blog] which this post is responding too, I want to thank the LA Times for responding via their Opinions LA blog. This has given the involved parties the opportunity to voice their opinions in the matter. From the responses Mr. Welch's post has received it appears most readers haven't agreed with his assessment of Pope's Op-Ed not constituting denial. Additionally, I don't believe that he has addressed our primary issue: that of the Times' choice to run the article being irresponsible.
Our blog, The Largest Minority has addressed these issues and responded in full to the Los Angeles Times.
Thank you for taking the time to consider our response.
Posted by: Matthew Ash | January 26, 2007 at 03:46 PM
This Genocide allogations nothing but a failed indepence movement of Armenians against Ottoman Empire. If we are going to call every failed indepence movement a genocide there should be 1.500.000 genocides through out the history.
Posted by: Johnathan Doeman | January 26, 2007 at 04:36 PM
"That's not a denial. Close, but no cigar." Well, may be. There are different ways to deny something.
There are different ways to poison a person or group of people. You can give a horse's portion and kill instantly or you can pour little by little, debilitating the victim, until death comes slowly but surely. Mr. Pope is no fool.
Genocide denials often confuse people with arguments that on the first glance seem legitimate. Things like Armenian claims that 1.5 million people were annihilated is exaggerated. Hell yes. I agree. How much is your number? 800,000? 600,000? women, children and old people. Intellectuals. Why them? Because they were Armenian. If this is not Genocide, what is it?
Oh, yeah, this another argument often brought up by Turks. It was war (WWI) and many Turks also died during war. I know. I am sorry. There were millions of Russians, Germans and other european nationalities who perished in WWII. Is it good enough argument to say that Jews died in result of war, as anyone else? No, of course not. I do not think Mr. Pope
would like that. They killed Armenians, because of being Armenian. They did it again a few days ago. They will keep doing it till people like Mr. Pope can pour poison, slowly, over the pages of LA Times.
Posted by: Cosmopolitan | January 26, 2007 at 08:30 PM
Hrant Dink: Respectfully and openly wrote with integrity about the truth while living in Turkey. For this, he was prosecuted for violating Turkish Law 301.
Status: DEAD
Hugh Pope: In a Jan 23rd-Op-Ed wrote assertions, hyper-speculation and about a "curse". One reads double-speak that is formed into empty opinions that, in turn, hold no water.
Status: ALIVE...and living free of threats, prosecution and fear in Turkey.
Posted by: G. Pridjian | January 27, 2007 at 09:00 AM
Most readers here targeted Pope's first part of the article (and rightfully so) where he covertly denies the Genocide.
I want to focus on the second half of Pope's article where he tries to suggest that the Armenians helped by the victorious allies supposedly massacred Turks.Pope calls them the Armenian bands.
Armenian's created self defense units (albeit too late) when the Genocide was in full progress. It took time for these units to become operational because the Genocide machine (one of the most important aspects that distinguishes a massacre from a genocide is genocide's highly planned, controlled, and centralized nature)was so effective and so throughly planned. Armenian bale bodied males were taken care of first, since most were in the military anyway, they were stripped of their weapons and eventually murdered. When these units became operational, they were still badly equipped and had very few successes, if they were more successful as the Turkish gov. is trying to portray them, we would have not had 1.5 million killed.
Now after the end of WW1 when Genocide was already carried out and Atatürk started to rise to power Turks attacked the newly independent Republic of Armenia and nearly reached its capital Yerevan, they did not take Yerevan but Armenia had to surrender a lot of land, for example historic Mt. Ararat and its surrounding territory fell to Turks. These are historic military facts there is no denying that those took place, hence they prove that Pope's image of weak and underpowered post WW1 Turkey is also a myth just like his Genocide denial.
Posted by: Arman Soultanyan | January 28, 2007 at 03:49 PM