Page 1

75  

TAKSIM GEZI PARK PROTESTS, PUBLIC SPHERE AND NEW MEDIA

(TURKISH, ENGLISH, AMERICAN, FRENCH AND GERMAN PRESS

SAMPLE)

Erhan Arslan, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Mersin University, Turkey

erhanarslan@mersin.edu.tr

Berna Arslan, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Mersin University, Turkey

arslanberna@mersin.edu.tr

Bengü Sever Sezer

Lecturer

Mersin University, Turkey

bengusever@gmail.com

Taner Sezer

Specialist

Mersin University, Turkey

admin@tscorpus.com

Erhan ARSLAN was born in 1971, in Eskişehir. In 1994, he graduated from Anadolu University,

Communication Sciences Faculty, Journalism Department. He completed his MA (1997) and Ph.D.

(2005) at the same university and department. He is working as an Assist. Prof. at Mersin University

Communication Faculty. His research interests include discourse analysis, content analysis and local

press.

Berna ARSLAN was born in 1971, in Eskişehir. In 1994 she graduated from Anadolu University,

Communication Sciences Faculty, Journalism Department. She completed her MA in 1997 at the same

department and received Ph.D. degree from Ege University, Communication Sciences Faculty,

Journalism Department, in 2006. She is working as an Assist. Prof. at Mersin University

Communication Faculty. Her research interests include media ethics and gender.

Bengü Sever SEZER was born in 1983. She graduated from linguistics department, Mersin University

in 2006 and received master’s degree from same department in 2010. Her research interests are

linguistics, media and culture.

Taner SEZER was born in 1978. He graduated from linguistics department, Mersin University in 2006

and received master’s degree from same department in 2010. His research interests are computational

linguistics, corpus linguistics, open source and Linux.

Abstract

This study, in the scope of public sphere, is an analysis of media perspective to social movements

regarding to informing public during Gezi Park Protests in 2013. In the theoretical part of the study,

historical background of Gezi Park, the political atmosphere after protests, the discourse of actors and

profile of Gezi Park protestors were analyzed. Content analysis and corpus linguistics methods were used

in the applied part of the study. A specialized corpus was built. It contains three different newspapers

from Turkish press, Cumhuriyet, Hürriyet and Zaman. Cumhuriyet, represents neo-nationalist,

Hürriyet represents main-stream media, and Zaman represents Islamist press in the sample. These

newspapers have different audiences, ownership structures and circulation. Six different sources were

selected from foreign press according to archive availability and density of news about Gezi Protests.

These are New York Times and Washington Post from USA, France 24 from France, Spiegel

International from Germany and Daily Telegraph and BBC from UK. The corpus consists of 2969 news

76  

selected within a set of news published between 27 May 2013 and 27 July 2013. The data was processed

and converted into a suitable format to be used within corpus workbench by using open-source software.

This study is important as a specialized corpus and content analysis methods are used together, including

both Turkish and the foreign media.

TAKSIM GEZI PARK PROTESTS, PUBLIC SPHERE AND NEW MEDIA (TURKISH,

ENGLISH, AMERICAN, FRENCH AND GERMAN PRESS SAMPLE)

“If you could have let, the tree would just cast a shadow, it has born unique fruit now.”

(A slogan from Gezi Park protests)

1. GEZİ PARK PROTESTS

Taksim Gezi Park protests had initially started to oppose 61st Government of Turkish

Republic’s plans of rebuilding the Military Barracks within the scope of “Taksim Square

Pedestrianization Project” in İstanbul. “Gezi Park Protests”, which is one of the most

remarkable public movements that occurred in recent Turkey, was honored by an intensive

interest beyond Turkey. It is a necessity to present the perspective of the background of the

events in order to analyze the protests that started on 27 May 2013 and into which a lot of actors

got involved.

1.1. A Public Sphere that has a Historical Background: Taksim Gezi Park

We need time to see how Gezi Park Protests would affect Turkey from social and political

perspective. However, the Taksim Square and the area that enclose Gezi Park maintain a

symbolic public sphere image from past to present. In this sense, it is not a coincidence that a

movement like Gezi Protests to start as a reaction against the “redesigning project” of the ruling

party. The Taksim Square is the most important public sphere that has kept the records of

architectural-cultural memories of Turkey's social struggles since Ottoman Empire to the

present. Taksim, like our memories, is an arena with the events that it suppressed and forgot or

symbolized and possessed. The monuments, buildings and roads, barricades that were placed

in the square could be seen as signifiers of class struggles (Kaptanoğlu, 2013:2). Gezi Park

protests, without a doubt, added a new edge to the historical background of this space.

Taksim, which was out of the residental area, was a large recreation area among Muslim and

Armenian cemeteries. The area called Taksim Garden was a frequently visited place for people

who wanted to spend time far from the crowd, in nature. The thing that changed that romantic

ambiance was the big military barrack that was ordered by III. Selim. According to archives the

building was finished in 1806; however, it didn't last long. The bulding was destructed to a

large extent during “Kabakçı Mustafa Rebellion” in 1807 (Yılmaz, 2013). In 19th century the

building was renewed; but it was destroyed again during another great rebelion in the reign of

II. Abdülhamid. The military barrack became the center of the rebellion, which took place on 31

March, in julian calender (13 April 1909), against unionist officers by the supporters of

Abdülhamid claiming that they were losing their religious values (Kaptanoğlu, 2013: 2).

In the first years of Turkish Republic, architectural movements were in progress. In 1927, the

name of the famous Levantine Street of Ottoman Period "Cadde-i Kebir" (the Big/Main/Great

Street) was changed into “İstiklal Caddesi” (The Independence Street). However, this change

thought to be insufficient to express the Republic's enthusiasm and they wanted a “Monument

of Republic” from the Italian sculpture Pietro Canonica. The monument was unveiled by Kazım

(Özalp), the head of the Great Assembly of Turkish Republic. After that, the Taksim Square

would replace Sultanahmet and Beyazıt Squares which were important public squares of the

Ottoman Period. In 1937, some radical changes were done in Taksim according to the

suggestions of Henri Prost who was invited to redesign İstanbul. First, the Military Barrack,

which was partly destroyed during 31 March incident, was demolished. The area would be

called as İnönü Gezisi (later, Taksim Gezisi) and it was linked to the Taksim Square. With its

38.000 square meters area it constituted 30 percent of green area of Beyoğlu, which became a

place of breathing point (Hür, 2012). All the incidents that mentioned before has occured in this

very area. To sum up, the historical roots of this public sphere are in the depths of history.

77  

1.2.The Rise and Continuum of Gezi Park Protests

Gezi Park protests were started by 50 people protesting “Taksim Square Pedestrianization

Project” in the evening of 27 May 2013, in Gezi Park. The group claimed that the operation

being done around the park (by a construction company) was illegal. They didn't allow the

workers to continue and announced that they would be guarding Gezi Park to prevent the

machines to start again (Ete, Taştan: 2013, 22). Then, the activists built their tents and spent day

and night to guard the park. The group criticized the government's attitudes blaming them to

be a “nanny state” and to try to dominate citizens' daily life. They soon got organized through

social media. In fact, the reaction against the government's intervention to the public sphere

was an overall respond to the government's recent practices on different events. In a way, “Gezi

Park protests” was the breaking point of the fault line that revealed a great energy.

As a result of this breaking point, during the protests, from the start, 27 May, to 30 June, the

police and people with plain clothes thought to be police attacked 105 journalists, 6 were

international, and took 28 journalists into custody. During the resistance a magazine was closed

down, two writers, a banner, a TV serial were censored and a TV channel was about to be

closed down. At least 12 journalists resigned, three were fired because of the biased and

censored attitude of the common media. At least 15 unions criticized the police's attacks aiming

journalists and the censorship in media.

Gezi Resistance, that started within the scope of “Taksim Square Pedestrianization Project” in

İstanbul in 27 May, spread 79 cities of Turkey (Gülcan, 2013). According to a report given by the

minister of internal affairs 2,5 million people joined the protests, 4900 people were taken into

custody, almost 4000 people got injured, (this number is 7478 according to Turkish Medical

Association), 5 people lost their lives. In that period, media said that 150 thousand tear gas

bombs, and 3 thousand tons of water were used in 15 days. Of course it is not right to evaluate

the protests with its visible results. It seems better to evaluate the protests from the perspective

of the structural and socio-cultural effects of it.

It seems that before 8 May 2013, the main motive of the protests was environmental conscience,

insensitivity of the housing decisions, and sharing of the benefits produced by the housing

decisions via crony capitalism. During the last decade, social awareness and reflex about

environmental destruction has remarkably increased. Using cyanides in gold mining at

Bergama and the Kaz Mountains, building thermal and hydro-electric energy plants in North

Anatolia, and campaings that Greenpeace and WWF organized against nuclear energy or global

warming are some of the examples of environmental protests. However, any mass involvement

into these protests hasn't been witnessed (Kalaycıoğlu 2013). The basic distinctive feature of

Gezi Park protests was that it consisted a lot of people having different ideological

backgrounds. Different beliefs, generations, economic profiles, and sexual preferences managed

to be agents in Gezi Park.

The characteristic structure of Gezi Park protests overlaps with the general characteristic

features of the new social movements of the late 70s and beginnings of 80s. We may summarize

the general characteristic features of the new social movements as (Çopuroğlu ve Çetin, 2010:73-

74):

1- New social movements have leaned to non-economic demands

2- New social movements have been organized in an anti-bureaucratic way unlike old

fashioned bureaucracy.

3- New social movements has raised as activist synergy that has equal rights to govern instead

of getting together under the leadership of a hero or leadership concept.

4- New social movements do their best to make use of the latest communication technologies.

The spread of these movements and extension of its scope have developed parallel to these

developments.

In recent history similar protests can be observed in the United States “The Food Not Bombs

Movement”, “Occupy Wall Street”, in England “Reclaim the Streets”, “Guerilla Gardening”,

“Occupy London” and in Spain, “Indignados” that took place in Puerto del Sol Square. In a an

interview, Ternura Rojas (http://redaksiyon.biz/ofkeliler-hareketi-ternura-rojas/) presents the

main phlosophy of Indignados movement as: “Indiganos movement is each leftist person who is

78  

ready to react the change in the society they live in whether they are the young or old. The individuals

ready for this change and to take initiative carry their will to change the present system to the common

struggle place of people's assembly and become a part of the movement. The Indigo Movement In Spain

has taken place in such an environment”. In his interview with Ömer Madra, one of the co-

founders of “The Food Not Bombs Movement” Keith McHenry underlines that there is no

hierarchical structure and says: “Nobody takes money for what they do here and everybody is doing it

volunteerly. We believe that it wouldn't be democratic to be paid. We are against violence. Although

American government asserts that we are one of the terrorists groups we are against violence. This

organization has no manager, I am one of the founders, but there are no official leaders” (Madra: 2013).

From a wide perspective, we may assert that Gezi Park protests and these movements have

similar reflections. Gezi Park Protests can be defined as a social movement that has no class or

leadership boundaries. The protests are effective on social media, open to volunteer

cooperation, and with creative protest styles and humorous discourse features the protests

created an awareness on masses.

Saktanber, a member of Sociology department in METU, thinks that Gezi Park was “the straw

that breaks the camel's back”. She explains the events via “right to the city” concept as; “Do

something about your city”. In the sociology literature the concept “right to the city” is equal

sharing the life space of the city, living with the differences. What we see here is a movement

that started with the idea to protect the lifestyles of city people. “What lies on the bottom of

these protests is the demand for “Democracy” (Saktanber, 2013). If we look from the point of

Badio’s view, we may say that emerging from a demand for democracy, Gezi Park protests as a

strike to the natural flow of time and so the banality of everyday life, occupation of Gezi Park

created an exception independent from the state authority in the middle of İstanbul (Erdem,

2013) .

This exception stands as a “sociological phenomena”. With its creative brilliance and art

production, this phenomena became an example of “the explanation of the space as a social

production” made by Lefebvre. The Park examplified not only the multi-agents and

multiculturalism of public space but also enabled a micro-life based on communal system

(Çetin, 2013). In a sense, Gezi Park was filled with social life and transformed by it (Güngör,

2013). Evren (2013), who focuses on the theories of contemporary arts and politics, points out

that these findings he had made regarding to the space was filled with life and transformed by

it. He says that “The cars and buses that were transformed into installation art are everywhere. People

are interfering these vehicles, redecorating them and by attaching small pieces of papers; they are creating

Yoko Ono like wish trees. Meanwhile, they are taking photographs and posing like crazy. Atlas magazine,

which is known for its interest of photography is also there. There, is a scene which deserves interest. A

group of people is seen in a public bus conquered by them. They took place like everything was as normal

as an ordinary journey from the point X to the point Y. The bus is full. There are people drinking water or

staring out of the window. But the thing is the bus is going nowhere. It is transformed into an experience

area in which Diren Gezi concept is materialized. In this bus, people are not waiting to travel to

somewhere, they are waiting to travel to a dream, an idea. The passengers of the bus, which is not going

anywhere, take an internal journey together in Gezi. Why did the people get on those buses? Where did

they expect to arrive? Or was the destination itself being on the bus, or the process itself? Well, is that

bus still going, if so where is it headed to? Or shall we say that the bus is stable but the passengers are

proceeding their journey?”

To answer all these questions seems impossible without reading all the notes that is attached to

the branches of the wish tree. The simple truth with no doubt is the different actors with

different characters shared an unusual experience in an ordinary place. This sharing went

beyond this public sphere to the world.

1.3. Actors

Gezi protests were realized by a large coalition. We may classify this large group as: The part

that is against the evacuation of the old Turkey and construction of the new Turkey; and the

part supporting this idea but against to constructing process to be done by religious-

conservative parts and their visions. What united these parts was not the demand for

democracy, but it was the fear of the construction process being held by religious-conservative

parts and not being able to be effective in this new era (Ete and Taştan, 2013:161).

79  

During the protests a lot of company making research about public opinion made studies to

reveal the actors, political discourse, and reflections of the protests. KONDA (2013) 6-7 June

2013 (4411 people), Genar 8-9 June 2013 (498 people) (GENAR, 2013), and Metropoll 11-13 June

2013 (500 people) (METROPOL, 2013) shared their survey results with the public. Furthermore,

the Foundation of Political, Economic, and Social Research (SETA 2013) carried out a study, a

face to face interview with the 62 protestors in four different cities (İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir and

Eskişehir) between 12-16 June 2013. Besides, an online survey was also done to observe Gezi by

two scholars from İstanbul Bilgi University, Faculty of Communication (Bilgiç, E.E. and

Kafkaslı, Z. 2013). The survey was online for almost 20 hours and answered by 3000 people.

All of these studies show that a remarkable part of the protestors are young people. According

to Konda's survey the average age is 28 in Gezi Park. According to the results of another online

survey carried out by Bilgiç and Kafkaslı %39,6 of protestors are 19-25 years old, %24 are 26-30

years old. According to the data of Metropoll company the age variance is given in the chart

below:

Figure  1.  Age  variance  of  protestors  

Even though people from different classes and generations took part in Gezi Park Protests; as it

is seen in different surveys the moving spirit of the protests were “youngsters”. After the

military coup in 1980, in Turkey, defining the youngsters as a-politic, criticizing them for acting

individually, living in their inner world, not being interested in social problems weren't

regarded odd. In a sense, the main reason that made these young people such a different

generation is that they were born into the network of capitalist information, at the same time

they are a generation of social network. Unlike former generations, the youngsters of social

networks are able to create online lives on virtual platforms, far from their families and close

relatives. On-line lives can lead to offline consequences from Tahrir to Zuccoti, and Gezi Park.

(Kaptanoğlu, 2013: 2). Labeled as a-politic “the network generation” broke the routine in Gezi

Park Protests and undertook the mission of being the drive motive. Kongar (Kongar and

Küçükkaya; 2013:54) defining this generation as “generation Y” stated their characteristics as

follows:

“They are a generation who are not accustomed to social and political boundaries, and

who live on the internet, believe in the values of humanity, and well educated, clever,

sophisticated, has learned and internalized democracy and freedom via living in it in their

families. This generation was the generation planting the seeds of Informatics Revolution

in Turkey which got confused between social organizations and values of Agricultural

Revolution and Industrial Revolution, and they certainly has allies and reflections in the

urban population resulted by Industrial Revolution.”

The young agents of these protests formed their own style of language. They made a great

impact on our minds with lots of sayings, writings, voices and images (Taycan, 2013). The

young masses created their own speech during the protests; with their own words “Against

unbalanced violence they used their unbalanced wit.” On the streets, all together they

expressed their ideas like; originating from the Prime Minister Erdoğan's advice to married

couples “Have at least three kids”, they said “Would you like three kids like us?”; against the

15-­‐19   20-­‐24   25-­‐29   30-­‐34   35-­‐39   40-­‐44   45-­‐49 50&+

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

11.20%

52.00%

17.80%

7.40%5.20%3.00% 1.80% 1.60%

80  

police violence “Enough already!, I will call the cops!” as a reaction to neo-liberalism “We want

forest not malls”.

According to Konda's data, women constitute 50,8 % and men 49,2 %. and people who have a

job constitute 52 %.

Figure  2.  Protestor  jobs  

When the education level of the protestors is examined, it can be observed that the level was

remarkably higher than the average of İstanbul, where the protests took place, and Turkey in

general. In Konda’s investigation the point in question is obviously revealed; while PhD level

educated population in Turkey and in İstanbul is 1,0 %, among the protestors of Gezi Park it

was 13.0 %. Similar average is seen in university graduates as well; while Turkey average is 11,0

% and İstanbul 13,0 %, this level is 43,0 % among the protestors.

Figure  3.  Educational  levels  of  protestors  

According to GENAR, in the definitions of the ideology profile of protestors Atatürkists are at

top of the list. Actually this signals that liberal-individualist dimension of the citizenship

concept is missing. West Europe had tasted the concept of individual before citizenship concept

evolved. The citizens in Turkey found themselves defending big social projects like

Kemalism/Atatürkism, Socialism, and Political Islam before they could have internalized

individualism (Kadıoğlu, 2008:180). The other ideological definitions of the protestors of Gezi is

as follows:

Employee

S tudent

Unemployed

Retired

Housewife

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

52%

37%

6%

3%

2%

81  

Table  1.  Ideological  distribution  of  protestors  

Ideological  Profile  

%  

 

Atatürkist  

33,5  

Libertarian*  

19,0  

Socialist  

12,4  

Social  Democrat  

8,9  

Democrat  

8,4  

Secularistic  

6,1  

Revoutionist  

3,3  

Teetotaler  

2,3  

Republican  

1,5  

Nationalist  

1,0  

Other  

2,8  

No  Answer  

0,8  

According to Bilgiç and Kafkaslı’s (2013) data 53.7 % of the protestor had never been in such a

massive protest by going out the streets. 70% doesn't feel close to any party, 14.7 % is hesitant

about being close to any party. Only 15.3 % feel close to a political party. In GENAR's research

protestors express the reasons of Gezi Park protests as follows:

Table  2.  The  reason  of  Gezi  Park  protests  

The  Reasons  Of  Gezi  Protests  

%  

Recep  Tayyip  Erdoğan  

58,0  

The  Government  /Ruling  Party  

13,7  

Police  Violence  

8,2  

Cutting  the  trees  

3,4  

Restriction  of  freedom  

2,0  

Turning  Gezi  Park  into  a  mall  

2,0  

Discrimination  

2,0  

Unearned  Income  

1,8  

Wrong  Wording/Style  

1,6  

Obstinate  behavior  

1,2  

Fascist  policies  

1,2  

Other  

2,9  

I  have  no  idea  

2,0  

Observing the interviews that SETA did with protestors, we reach similar results. In SETA's

research named as “Gezi Protests between Fiction and Reality” (Ete and Taştan, 2013:148) the

observations concerning the reasons are: “The initial drive that push the protestors to the fields was

the renewal and modernization actions. Parallel to the change of participant profile in accompany with

the progress, the anger and hatred against AKP government, and the Prime Minister; the fear of

intervention and concern about individual freedom in daily life as well as basic rights and liberties; the

rage that accrued related to technical, denominational and religion basis, opposing positions against the

political system; and the state authority.”

Gezi protests underlined “switching the roles” in political center that accelerated in the last

decade in Turkey and the pain of this shift. In addition, the protests enlightened the struggle of

constructing the new Turkey. In other words, “protests” functioned as a fragment of the values,

notions, and actors of the new political system. (Ete ve Taştan, 2013:162).

2. Public Sphere Discussions And New Media

It isn’t possible to define public sphere in a single manner. Along with its historical,

evolutionary, and intellectual form, public sphere can be discussed and interpreted by different

point of views. Aristotle’s civil society idea, Arendt’s heuristic works on politics and political

notions by appealing the distinction between private and public sphere, Habermas’ discursive

public sphere model, Taylor’s point on “the space beyond” related to public sphere, and Nancy

82  

Fraser’s conceptualization of “opposite publics” in action to the notion that liberal opponent

public spheres cannot be ignored. Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge’s point to “protelerian

public sphere” by centralizing the tendency towards labor class, Nicholas Garnham’s “civil

service publishing”, James Curran’s works on “public publishing model” put forward by the

view of ideal public sphere and “Micro, meso, and macro public spheres” classification of John

Keane determining the re-feudalism of public sphere prove the productivity and affluence of

public sphere discussions.

“At the same time, architects, geographers, planners, anthropologists, urbanists, and others

have delved into discussions of public space” (Smith and Low, 2006:5). “The idea of the “public

sphere” as an arena of political deliberation and participation, and therefore as fundamental to

democratic governance, has a long and distinguished history. The imagery of the Athenian

agora as the physical space wherein that democratic ideal might be attained has also had a

powerful hold on the political imagination” (Harvey, 2006:17).

Public sphere can be explained more explicitly with “argumentative, liberal and discursive

model”. In the argumentative model, public sphere is evaluated with the contentious viewpoint

of “republican morals” or “urban morals”. In Hannah Arendt’s studies, argumentative public

figure is mentioned more explicitly. The second viewpoint is liberal public sphere, which is

based on the consistent public system. The last point of view is discursive public sphere that

handles the democratic reformation of late capitalist societies and is related to the political life

(Benhabib, 1992:73 in Toker, 2011:18). Of the discussions on public sphere, one of the most

eminent milestones is the study of Habermas, which is important to put forward the public

sphere notion correctly.

Habermas (1999:60) describes public sphere by using Greek originated categories: “In Greek

city state, the area of police which is commonly used by the citizens (koine) is exactly separated

from the area of oikos that belongs to the individuals (idia). Public life (bios politikos) takes

place in the market place agora; however, it isn’t connected spatially. Public can be formed by

public, court, parliament meetings (lexis), as well as the common action in wars and war games

(praxis). Habermas, who focuses on the citizens who communicate as equals, states that

everything is unveiled in the sight of public and could only be seen in this way. Habermas sees

public sphere as a place where private individuals come together to discuss “public issues” and

“common interest.” Insomuch, according to Habermas public sphere is a theater where political

participation is animated through speech. In such a place, citizens express their ideas about

public issues, so they interact each other discursively. This area is conceptually distinct from the

state. Moreover, it is a place where the discourse criticizing the state is produced and spread

(Sarıbay, 2000: 4).

The media power and will are the determiners on the establishment and spread of the ideas in

the public sphere. Media has the dominant role on the discussions in the public sphere. Charles

Taylor (2001) calls attention to the role of media, regarding the importance of public sphere, in

his article “On Social Imaginary”: “The public sphere is a central feature of modern society. The public

sphere as a common space in which the members of society are deemed to meet through a variety of media:

print, electronic, and also face-to-face encounters; to discuss matters of common interest; and thus to be

able to form a common sense about these .” As Limpmann (1922) emphasises, the media is “the

builders of the photographs in our minds.” (Gurevitch and Blumler, 2002: 270).

“The news media in this perspective is an important part of this field, providing us with a

distinct public space for production of discourse. At the same time, the news media is a

powerful weapon in the contest for power, stability and change in society and can represent

and reproduce the power and impact of particular interests through their positions in the media

order” (Slaatta, 2006:18). However, the aim of the media shouldn't be to supersede public

authorities or to provide public services that other public institutions hold. Media is one of the

most important tools that enables the citizens to establish their opinions and express them

rather than representing the public (Encoba, 2002: 454, in İrvan). From a different point of view,

it is also possible to approach the effect of the media on public sphere by not affirming it but

within the frame of the argument that media is blurring the borders of public sphere.

With his negative discourse, Habermas points out that the world created by press is “pseudo-

public”. He emphasizes the limits between public and private spheres are being fuzzy and

83  

vague in his evaluations related to transformation of public sphere. He attributes an important

role to the transformation in media. According to him, since 19th century, massification and

monopolization of newspapers have caused the digression of press from its function of

mediating public discussions. Also, the press that reaches the crowds of people through penny

press and yellow journalism has lost its political character. In the 20th century, “new media”

like radio, television, and movies have made this apolitical presence get deeper. Activities based

on pleasure or commodity fetishism replaced the public activities based on reasoning. Even

talking about consumption has become a part of consumption (Habermas, 1999:291-295). There

is no doubt that the public area where the press has been dominant is principally different from

agora model in which citizens come together to discuss public issues (Staton, in Meyer: 2002:

103). Contrary to the old parliament democracy market place, public sphere, where the press is

dominant, functions as a very special stage that is certainly limited to reach in principle.

Although accessibility has changed in centuries, traditional theater stage is open to very

different range of plays. However, the stage of mass media is liable to a very complex and

selective conditions set because events are produced or presented before (Meyer: 2002: 104).

However, in the final analysis as Slaatta underlines “Media is an important stream in the

manifest of public sphere” (Slaatta, 1999:37, in Toker, 2012:45)

Today, although people have the opportunity to reach the information instantly, they have lost

their ability to react. On the one hand, television informs people; on the other hand, it makes

them passive. Nowadays, new mass technologies carry this kind of risks much more. The TV

addict individual has temporal satisfactions without using too much energy; however, they

cannot adapt this to their daily lives. In this globalizing world where public and private

distinction is nearly imperceptible, these technologies carry the danger of making individuals

introverted. When all kind of texts' being fictional is added to this situation, we reach a table

like: what to discuss, who(m) to discuss, how and how much to discuss are all predetermined.

Government wants to make individuals talk, and in this way it is able to hide its problems and

justifiy themselves (Özgül, 2012:4536). In a sense, it neutralizes the cumulative negative energy

in the public sphere by using media contents. A similar situation reveals itself in a different way

in the new media formation.

One of the greatest advantages of social media is to access many people just by a click; however,

as long as the perception is stable, the importance of the quantity is questionable. Thanks to

new media technologies, nowadays a great number of people can get organized in a very short

time to protest against anything on the streets. However, this easy activism powered by new

media is actually a type of pacifism. Besides being a place where people come together, social

networks gives people a place to display their networks and via these networks to form their

own identities (Boyd, Ellison, 2007 in Özgül, 2012:4541). Globalization of information and

communication suggest the opportunities of a new framework that hasn’t been thought in

terms of citizenship and democracy up to now. At the same time, specialization and

individualism which are supported by new information technologies point at a very different

and almost the opposite direction: Public sphere’s getting empty and its importance is

decreasing in modern western societies (Kumar, 1999: 195). At this very point, it is meaningful

that the lead actors defending the public sphere are the people using new information

technologies most. Also, it is quite ironic that these people, youngsters, came together -first in

Taksim- by getting organized via the new information technologies, which were accused of

being the reason of the emptiness in the public sphere at the first place.

Although protestors do not attain any meanings to Gezi protests, the relationship between the

protests and the place underlines that the resistance has political relations. That is to say the

protests (like a battle) took place in a public space and its surroundings to defend that very

public space and one of the main motives of the protests were being against neo-liberalism,

which is making a public space to lose its function by selling, privatizing it. The protests relaxed

the public sphere. It reminded that the public sphere must be open to the citizens and cannot be

trapped or confined to the control of the state and capitalism. The government only thinks

about the public order, not public sphere. It means chaos (Göle, 2013).

84  

3. TS Gezi Corpus

The Background

A corpus is a collection of texts. These texts are generally combined to form a data-set on which

" keyword queries" are run. Corpora are classified according the features they serve or the data

set that they are composed of.

TS Gezi Corpus is a PosTagged and specialized corpus. Each word in the corpus has a tag

attached to it that defines the word class. And the data-set that formed the corpus is collected

according to predefined criteria. The corpus is composed of 2763 news from three Turkish

newspapers, Hürriyet, Cumhuriyet and Zaman; and 205 news from 6 sources from 4 countries,

BBC, New York Times, Spiegel, Daily Telegraph, Washington Post and France24. The corpus

contains 1,133,326 and 2969 news in total.

Turkish sources were selected according to the newspaper circulation, online availability and

the represented ideology of the newspaper; one from left-wing-republican, one from the main-

stream press and one from the conservative side. The English sources were selected according

to online availability and the density of the news about Gezi Park protests.

The corpus is served within TS Corpus project. To process the data TS Corpus tools (tokenizer,

PosTagger, etc.) were used. The online interface is based on CQPWeb and the corpus

background is based on CWB, on which the queries are run.

Each news item (text) in the corpus has its own distinctive ID card, which is called meta-data in

corpus linguistics. The meta-data contain text type information about the news. These are: The

language of the news (Language), the newspaper (Newspaper), the genre (Genre), the producer

of the news (Source) and period (Period). Language, Newspaper and genre are self-exploratory;

source refers to the producer of the news, whether a news agency or the newspaper itself and

period refers to periods that Gezi Park protests are divided into: The beginning, the politisation

and the weakening.

Queries

A query is a search for (a) keyword(s) or a predefined tag. On TS Gezi Corpus, a query may run

over the complete dataset or on a restricted text type mentioned above. Queries also allow users

to use regular expressions via wildcards, such as * (asterisk) or +(plus sign). Each of these

wildcards has a special meaning. For instance, an asterisk (*) refers to one or more characters.

The query run with the keyword “Park” will fetch only the exact match for the park, but park*

will fetch every word that begins with park and followed by any character in any numbers.

Statistics

Corpora are not simple search-and-find tools. They are capable of producing statistics about the

data. In this study, among all others, generally two built-in statistic function are used;

distribution and collocation. The distribution function is the statistical representation of the

keyword according to the text types.

Collocation, which means the co-occurrence of any two words, is frequently used in corpus

linguistics. It can be calculated via different algorithms. In this study we used log-likelihood by

setting window span, in other words, the number of words effecting the calculation is set to five

words on each side.

Another important statistics feature in a corpus is “raw frequency” (the observed occurrence of

a word/total count of a word) which is not a very meaningful calculation by itself. Therefore,

the frequency is "normalized" by calculating the frequency ratio to per million words. In this

study, per million frequencies have taken into account.

85  

Corpora and Social Sciences

In the last decade, corpora have been used in social sciences more often, in order to investigate

tendencies, the language of expression and representation of a particular subject in a particular

field. With this respect, many specialized corpora are built and used.

An advantage of using a specialized corpus is that this corpus contains data of a specific field,

which means each query will fetch "related" results to the subject. For instance, "polis" (police) is

an important actor in Gezi Protests. The collocations of "polis" in TS Gezi Corpus includes "taş"

(rock), "aşırı" (excessive), "biber gazı" (tear gas) etc., while the collocations of "polis" are "hırsız"

(thief), "akademi" (academy) or "jandarma" (constabulary/gendarme) in TS Corpus V2, which is

a general corpus.

Building a corpus that features part-of-speech tagging and text type restrictions is a time

consuming and tedious, consequently it is a hard job to deal with. Besides it also requires high

computational skills. One of the aims of this study is to build this specialized corpus and

introduce the corpus freely, online available for academic studies and researches. TS Gezi

Corpus is available on TS Corpus (Sezer and Sezer: 2013) website.

Table  3.  Distribution  of  the  data  

News  Source  

Number  of  Texts  

Number  of  Words  

Cumhuriyet  

942  

358.760  

Hürriyet  

1038  

378.502  

Zaman  

783  

254.751  

Turkish  Total  

2763  

992.013  

Washington  Post  

26  

23.372  

BBC  

69  

44.434  

France24  

44  

18.394  

NewYork  Times  

35  

26.068  

Der  Spiegel  

19  

25.381  

Daily  Telegraph  

11  

3.866  

Foreign  Total  

205  

141.516  

Total  

2968  

1.133.326  

Table  4.  Genre  distribution  

 

Diary  

Economy   Politics   Sports  

Education  

Arts&Culture  

Cumhuriyet  

487  

15  

313  

21  

16  

90  

Hürriyet  

462  

111  

294  

26  

40  

105  

Zaman  

450  

188  

101  

28  

5  

11  

Total  Turkish  

1399  

314  

708  

75  

61  

206  

New  York  Times  

16  

3  

14  

-­‐-­‐  

-­‐-­‐  

2  

Spiegel  

5  

3  

11  

-­‐-­‐  

-­‐-­‐  

-­‐-­‐  

Daily  Telegraph  

6  

-­‐-­‐  

5  

-­‐-­‐  

-­‐-­‐  

-­‐-­‐  

France  24  

24  

-­‐-­‐  

18  

-­‐-­‐  

-­‐-­‐  

3  

BBC  

30  

6  

33  

-­‐-­‐  

-­‐-­‐  

-­‐-­‐  

Washington  Post  

14  

2  

10  

-­‐-­‐  

-­‐-­‐  

-­‐-­‐  

Total  English  

95  

14  

91  

-­‐-­‐  

-­‐-­‐  

5  

 

1494  

328  

799  

75  

61  

211  

86  

4. Findings And Comments

Table  5.  Word  Frequency  According  to  the  Periods  

 

Beginning  

 

Politization  

 

Weakening  

 

1  

Gezi  

152   Gezi  

3738  

Gezi  

2910  

2  

Taksim  

88  

Taksim  

1954  

Parkı  (Park)  

1706  

3  

Ergin  

48  

Parkı  (Park)  

1842  

Polis  (Police)  

955  

4  

Destek  (Support)  

41  

Başbakan  (Prime  Minister)  

1152  

Taksim  

833  

5  

Kılıçdaroğlu  

36  

Polis  (Police)  

1125  

İstanbul  

769  

6  

İstanbul  

34  

Turkey  

848  

Türkiye  

758  

7  

Önder  

34  

İstanbul  

833  

Başbakan(Prime  Minister)  

608  

8  

Parkı  

34  

Destek  (Support)  

813  

Gözaltı  (Custody)  

557  

9  

CHP  

34  

Müdahale  (Intervention)  

736  

Erdoğan  

467  

10  

Police  

27  

Erdoğan  

731  

Türk  (Turkish)  

465  

When the word frequency is extracted by evaluating the protests in three periods naturally

“Gezi”, “Taksim” and “parkı” are listed in the most frequent words. In the beginning period

“Ergin” is the most third frequent word. It is the surname of the Justice Minister's of the time.

This points out that legal discussions were intense at the time. In the same period the opponents

like Kılıçdaroğlu, Önder (Sırrı Süreyya) were prominent. In the politization period the

frequency of the words “The prime minister and police” arose. In the weakening period, it is

remarkable that the word police rise up to the third place. The word police was on the on the

tenth place, in politization period, on the fifth place and in the weakening period, it is on the

third place. This rise is a signal of the gradual rise of the crack down dose of the police against

to the protestors.

4.1. Nature and Environment

The Green Area

Gezi Park has an image of “green field” in people's mind. The collocation results from Turkish

Press show that people expect the park to remain as a green field. This is also reflected on the

news. In the foreing news “green area” is associated with the words like “little”, “rare”, “the last”

etc.

Tree

In Turkish Press, some of the news emphasised that cutting the trees is a “masaccare”. In 10

different news in Cumhuriyet and Hürriyet this expression occures mostly in politization

period. This exression is not seen in Zaman. Especially in the news which are based on the

government speeches, tree collocates with "planted tees". In the foreign press, top collocations of

tree are “cutting” or “protecting”.

Park

In Turkish Press, ''olarak" (as) and “kalması" (remain) words frequently collocates with Park.

Another remarkable point is that the words “yargı"(justice), “eylem" (protest) and “izin"

(permission), which are not expected to collocate with park in people's minds, is observed

frequently. In the foreign press “demolish" and "rebuild" are observed as collocations of park.

The news in Turkish press are set around the demands of protecting the Park, but in foreign

press it is built to emphasise the actual reasons of this incident.

4.2. Public Sphere and Public Property

The word “public sphere” takes place in police newsletters prepared for press; therefore, it takes

place in news. In these news, “by occupying Gezi Park and its surroundings, Gezi Park can no longer

be used by public as a public sphere.” expression is used. The members of Gezi Park platform

underline, the argued "rearrangement project" of Taksim Square and Gezi Park is an attempt to

occupy the public sphere.

On the other hand, the observed frequency of "public sphere/space" is very rare, 19 times out of

87  

(approximetly) 1 million words. This signals that "the core of the events" did not take place in

news as it was expected. The higher frequency of this keyword and its occurence in more news

in foreign media shows their sensitivity on this subject.

Public Property

“Public property” mostly collacate with “damage” in Turkish Press. It is noticable that in Zaman

the frequency of this keyword is equal to the total frequency of two other sources (Zaman 65,

Cumhuriyet 35 and Hurriyet 30).

It is significant that in Turkish news public property is more prominent than public

space/sphere. In the foreign press we obtain total opposite results; public space/sphere occur

more than public property. This shows that the foreign press focused on the public sphere not

the property.

4.3 Democratic Rights

Democracy

The first collocate of the "democracy" is "class". It is observed the word "class" doesn't represent

the classes of the society but the grade of democracy, such as “first class democracy”. The words

“özgürlük” (freedom), “katılımcı” (attendee/participant), “ileri” (advanced) and ”hukuk” (law), “seçim”

(election) also collocated with democracy. Democracy and its morphological varieties were used

504 times in Cumhuriyet, 510 times in Hürriyet and 191 times in Zaman. In the foreign news,

frequent collocates of “democracy” are “healthy democracy”, “mature democracy", and "test of

democracy”.

Solidarity

In Turkish and foreign press “dayanışma” (solidarity) takes place in the context of “Taksim Gezi

Parkı Dayanışma Platformu” (Taksim solidarity platform). And the word solidarity stands out

in the context of the news saying that the protestors are “in solidarity”.

Freedom

In the analysis of “Özgürlük” (freedom) keyword in Turkish news, the observed collocates are

“hak” (right),“demokrasi” (democracy),”ifade”(expression), ”toplanma”(gathering) and ”düşünce”

(thought). The most frequent collocation is the phrase “özgürlük ve hak/demokrasi” (freedom,

rights and democracy). In the foreign news the same word collocates with “speech”, “expression”,

“press “and “personal”.

4.4. Act/Protests Of Violance

When we analyse the visible and non visible effects of the violance in the news we found out

that visible effects are more frequent. The non-visible effects of violance are ignored in the news

and this seems to be a problematic point about the messages conveyed to the public. We think

that this attitude may encourage violance.

88  

Table  6.  Visible  and  invisible  violence  acts  

 

Visible  effects  of  Violent  Acts  

Invisible  effects  of  Violent  Acts  

 

Word  

Frequency  

Word  

Frequency  

 

 

Turkish  

Foreign  

 

Turkish  

Foreign  

   

Freq  

PM  

Freq  

PM  

 

Freq  

PM  

Freq  

PM  

           Excessive    

           Force  

134  

153.22  

42  

296.78  

Social  

Structure  

-­‐  

-­‐  

30  

211.99  

  Gas  

697  

702.61  

336  

2388.39  

Cultural  

Structure  

3  

3.02  

6  

42.3  

  Molotov  

128  

129.03  

6  

42.60  

Trauma  

39  

39.6  

3  

21.19  

  Death  

Injured  

101  

101.81  

141  

996.34  

Child  

67  

67.8  

42  

296.78  

  Arrested  

-­‐Under  

Custody  

147  

148.18  

78  

551.17  

Nature  

53  

53.4  

20  

141.32  

  Fire  

171  

172.38  

111  

784.35  

Hate  

365  

365.6  

50  

353.31  

  Destruction  

87  

87.07  

30  

211.99  

Violation  of  

Law  

9  

9.07  

4  

29.22  

  Bullet  

114  

114.92  

30  

211.99  

Violance  

Culture  

2  

2.02  

-­‐  

14.12  

  Water  

Cannon  

409  

412.29  

145  

1024.6  

 

 

 

 

 

  Water  

479  

482.86  

24  

170.4  

 

 

 

 

 

  Harm  

Damage  

649  

654.23  

30  

211.99  

 

 

 

 

 

  Violence  

1173  

1182.44  

94  

664.23  

 

 

 

 

 

4.5. Kinds Of Protests

Occupy

As a protest style, the key word “occupy” is used 38 times in Cumhuriyet, 32 times in

Hürriyetand 25 times in Zaman. It occured as a verb 5 times in Cumhuriyet, twice in Hürriyet

and 6 times in Zaman. “Gezi protests” is explained in connection with the other occupy

movements in the world. It is represented as a way of searching the right to legal remedies.

It is found that the word “occupy” in the “occupy protests” phrase is used by its “occupation

(the action of entering and taking control of a building)” meaning by the accredited sources

representing the government. In the foreing press the word is used in connection with “Occupy

Wall Street” protests.

Humor

The frequency of humor (mizah) is 72 in the whole corpus. The word is frequently used in arts

genre, especially in the weakening period. In total, it is used 18 times in Cumhuriyet, 54 times in

Hürriyet. In Zaman this keyword doesn’t occur. This distribuiton is a reference that humor is a

protest method accepted by opponent discourse. In the foreign press it used only twice.

Slogan/Motto

“Slogan” (and its morphologic variants) is one of the most frequent words in the corpus. It

occured 612 times; 220 in Cumhuriyet, 266 in Hürriyet, and 126 in Zaman. The collocates

“against” and “(in)support(of)” are interesting when we categorize them into positive and

negative sets. “aleyhte/aleyhinde slogan” (negative slogan) occures 50 times and “lehte/lehinde slogan”

(positive slogan) occures only twice. The slogans frequently took place in news are “her yer

taksim her yer direniş” (taksim everywhere, resistance everywhere) and "hükümet istifa"

(government resign). In the foreign press most frequent collocates are “resign” and “anti-

government”.

Standing Man

“Standing” Man was one of the symbols of the protests. He has drawn attention from all over

the world with his passive prostesting style. Standing Man is used in the news 108 times in

total. This keyword took place in the weakening period and mostly in agenda news. In the

foreign press it is used 6 times.

89  

Social Media

Social media occured 628 times in Turkish Press which is a high frequency compared to other

keywords. It is interesting that, the collocates are generally negative connotated words such as

(lie, untrue, pollution, trouble, fake, provocation, rage, insult etc.) On the other hand, it is

evaluated as a platform on which people get organized. This perception is parallel to foreign

news. In the foreign press, social media is observed 51 times and again as a platform where

people get organized. News also emphasised that people used social media as a communication

medium.

4.6. Media And Cencorship

Censorship

“Censorship” is used 71 times in Turkish news. The collocations of “censorship” presented

expected results. It is frequently used with “medya” (media), “basın” (press), “sosyal-medya” (social

media), “otosansür” (self-cencor) and “ana akım medya” (mainstream media). In Cumhuriyet

censorship occures 43 and in Hurriyet 28 times. This word doesn’t occure in Zaman. These

results are parallel to the cencorship arguments in the society.

Another remarkable result is seen in the distribution according to the periods. In weakening

period it occured two times more than politization period. Cencorship is observed in 57

different news and only 14 of them are from the second hand sources; news agencies.

Dismiss

In the query of “dismiss”, “fire” and “lay off” keywords, the results came from 18 different news.

These news are analysed by their context. Only 5 of them were related to media industry. The

pressure on media industry is known as a widely disscussed topic, but results showed that the

media did not produce enough news about this issue.

Social Media and Prohibition

Social media performs an important role during protests as it carries information from reliable

sources to the public. In most of the news about social media it is observed that “Twitter and

Facebook” is an inseparable couple.

It is also noticable that Twitter is more frequent than Facebook. Facebook is observed as a

platform that public figures, artists and celebrities shared their ideas and comments. On the

other hand, among the collocations of Twitter, it is observed that political figures are more

common. For example, Mutlu (the governor of İstanbul, Hüseyin Avni Mutlu), Gökçek, (The Mayor of

Ankara, Melih Gökçek), Çelik (vice president of AKP, Hüseyin Çelik), are political names that are

observed.

Besides, words like “yalan” (lie), “bela” (trouble), “işbirliğine yanaşmama” (unwilling to cooperate)

are other frequent collocates of Twitter. These collocations refer to the negative perception

about social media argued before.

5. RESULTS

Gezi Park has its roots deep inside concerning the place and history. As a place Gezi Park has

witnessed power struggles throughout the history and will always do so. To search the reasons

of present protests in the recent past would block the understanding the reasons as a whole.

Therefore, analyzing the subject, by means of public space and protests, from this historical

perspective seems to be a better choice. “Gezi Park Protests” is undoubtedly an edge in the

memory of Turkish politics. The reflections of this edge on the public opinion generally depend

on what is/is not served by media. In this paper, the attempt to analyze the reflections of Gezi

Protests on media with its different aspects takes its roots from the desire to present this edge in

a meaningful way.

In the beginning period of the protests, Turkish and Foreign Press point out the origin of the

protests was “green fields”. However the discourse of “Political figures” is more common in the

later periods. This underlines us that the news patterns of Turkish and Foreign press are in

common.

90  

While the struggle of public sphere is the focus of the protests, it observed that, public sphere is

not emphasized enough in Turkish media. On the contrary, Foreign media gave a wider place

to this concept. It is concluded that Turkish Press should inform their reader more about similar

concepts. Although Turkish Press doesn't emphasize enough the concept of “public sphere” in

their news, it is interesting that they use “public property” frequently, especially emphasizing

the harm done by the protestors.

In the style of the news about the violent protests, Turkish and Foreign News have an approach

in common. They focused on visible effects of violence (death, injured, tear gas, bullet, etc.), and

it is possible to assert this act is problematic regarding peace journalism. This has led the

protests to become more violent. In this respect, we may argue that the press should give more

place to the invisible effects (socio-cultural structure, trauma, violations of law, etc.) of violence

in such social events.

In our age, the speed of information transfer has accelerated as an advantage of advanced

technology, which led to some words or phrases to became symbols in a very short time. For

example after the tweets that spread out very quickly with a hashtag #standingman, following

the "standing man" protest, the phrase “standing man” became one of the symbols of Gezi

Protests. By the effect of this phenomenon, many words or phrases became popular figures or

symbols, in a way which was never seen before during a social event. It is observed that,

Turkish and foreign media frequently used these symbols.

“Social media” generally refers to two websites in news; Twitter and Facebook. The analysis of

these news shows that, Facebook is mostly related to celebrities and their statements and

Twitter is related to the accredited sources. The traditional media reflects Twitter, as a medium

that protestors used to get organized, gathering together and communicate. The effects of this

reflection are clearly seen in the prohibition of social media during protests. In the following

period, the effects of this perception affected the legal regulations about the Internet.

“Gezi Park Protests” is undoubtedly a milestone in Turkish politics. As it is seen, media and

social media have important effects on social events like Gezi Park. The reflections of protests

on the public opinion depend on what is and what is not served by media. A corpus rises here

as a reliable tool to observe what is reflected by media, by means of word frequencies,

collocations and text distribution. As TS Gezi Corpus is publicly open and on-line available

source, further studies can be done by researchers. This study is expected to be a useful source

for scholars and researchers working on Gezi Protests.

REFERENCES

BENHABIB, S. (1992). Models of Public Space: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition and Jürgen

Habermas. Habermas and the Public Sphere (73-99). Derleyen C. Calhoun,

Massachusetts: MIT Press. Aktaran: Huriye Toker, (2011). Kamusal Alanda Avrupa

Birliği Tartışmaları: Haber Medyası İncelemesi, Avrupa Birliği Bakanlığı Akademik

Araştırmalar Serisi-2.

BILGIÇ E.E. & KAFKASLI Z. (2013). “direngeziparkı“ (http:// www.habervesaire. com/

news/direniscilerin-portresi-gencim-ozgurlukcuyum-basbakana-kizginim-2570.html).

(Boyd, Ellison, 2007 aktaran Özgül, 2012:4541).

ÇETIN, M. (2013). “Diren-ç-Mekan Taksim Gezisi’nde Kamusal Mekanın Sratejik Gücünün Yeniden

Keşfi, Panorama Khas Bilim Sanat Kültür Dergisi, Temmuz 2013, Sayı 11, ISSN 21464320

(Electronic Document: http://www.khas.edu.tr/uploads/panoramakhas/sayi11

/MuratCetin.pdf)

ÇOPUROĞLU, Y.C. & ÇETIN B.N. (2010). “Yeni Sosyal Hareketler Paradigması Bağlamında

Türkiye'deki Küreselleşme Karşıtı Grupların Birbirleriyle ve Dünyadaki Karşıtlarla

Karşılaştırılması”, Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1

ERDEM, C. (2013).“Alain Badiou’nun Olay Felsefesi ve Gezi Ruhu’nun Hakikati (Varlık Versiyonu)”,

(Electronic Document: http://cengizerdem.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/alain-

badiounun-olay-felsefesi-ve-gezi-ruhunu-hakikati-5/)

ERKMEN, D. (2013). “Politik Olmak Apolitik olamak ve Gezi Olayları” (Electronic Document:

http://www.bianet.org/bianet/siyaset/ 148666-politik-olmak-apolitik-olmak-ve-gezi-

olaylari).

91  

ETE, H., & TAŞTAN, C. (2013). Kurgu İle Gerçek Arasında Gezi Eylemleri, Seta Yayınları

XXVIII Birinci Baskı, Ankara.

EVREN, S. (2013). “Gitmeyen Otobüsün Yolcuları-Occupy, Tahrir ve Mayıs ’68 Hatlarıyla

Gezi’ye Seyahat” (Electronic Document: http://www.ykykultur.com.tr/dergi/?makale

=1334&id=2582)

GENAR (2013). Electronic Document: (http://www.genar.com.tr/files/GEZIPARKI_PROFIL-

SON.pdf)

GÖLE, N. (2013). “Gezi Bir Kamusal Meydan Hareketinin Anatomisi” Electronic Document:

http://t24.com.tr/yazarlar/nilufer-gole/gezi-bir-kamusal-meydan-hareketinin-

anatomisi, 6824).

GÜLCAN, E. (2013). “Medyanın Gezi Güncesi”, (Electronic Document:http:// bianet.org

/bianet/ print/148656.

GÜNGÖR, A. (2013). “Gezi Parkı Barikatları: Toplumsal Mekanın Üretimi”, (Electronic Document:

http://www.mekanar.com/tr/yazi/makale/gezi-parkı-barikatları-bölüm-1-ayşe-

güngör.html)

HABERMAS, J. (1999). Kamusallığın Yapısal Dönüşümü, Çev: Tanıl Bora, Mithat Sancar,

İletişim Yayınları 438, Politika Dizisi 25 İkinci Baskı, İstanbul.

HARVEY  D.  (2006).  “The  Political  Economy  of  Public  Space”  Low,  S.  And  Smith,  N.  (2006)  The  

Politics  of  Publc  Space,  Routledge  Taylor  and  Francis  Group,  LCC,  New  York.

HÜR, A. (2012). “Menderes ve Erdoğan’ın Jakoben Belediyeciliği”, (Electronic Document:

http:/www.radikal.com.tr/yazarlar/ayse_hur/menderes_ve_erdoganin_jakoben_beledi

yeciligi-1106514)

İRVAN, S. (2002). Medya, Kültür, Siyaset, “Siyasal İletişim Sistemleri ve Demokratik Değerler”

Gurevitch, Michael, Bumler, Jay G., Alp Yayınevi, Ankara.

KADIOĞLU, A. (2008), Vatandaşlığın Dönüşümü Üyelikten Haklara, Metis Yayınları, Birinci

Basım, İstanbul.

KALAYCIOĞLU, E. (2013). Electronic Document: http://bilimakademisi.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/08/Siyasal-Katılmanın-Anatomisi.pdf).

KAPTANOĞLU, C. (2013) “Psikososyal Açıdan Gezi Direnişi”, Türkiye Psikiyatri Derneği Bülteni,

“Psikiyatri Gezi Direnişini Konuşuyor” Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2 ISSN 13083279 (Electronic

Document:

http://www.psikiyatri.org.tr/uploadFiles/publicationsFile/file/2102013223847-

TPD_bulten16_2.pdf)

KONDA, (2013). Electronic Document:

(https://www.academia.edu/3702481/who_are_resisting _to_Gezi_Parki)

KONGAR, E. & KÜÇÜKKAYA, A. (2013). Türkiye’yi Sarsan Otuz, Gün Gezi Direnişi,

Cumhuriyet Kitapları, 7. Baskı, İstanbul.

KUMAR, K. (1999). Sanayi Sonrası Toplumdan Post-Modern Topluma Çağdaş Dünyanın Yeni

Kuramları, Çeviren: Mehmet Küçük, Dost Kitabevi Yayınları, Ankara.

METROPOLL (2013). Electronic Document: (http://www.metropoll.com.tr/report/gezi-parki-

protestolari-haziran-2013)

SAKTANBER, A. (2013). “Gezi Parkı Eylemleri Yorumu”, Electronic Document: http://www.

cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/diger/425720/Sosyolog_dan__Gezi_Parki__eylemleri_yorum

u.html.

SARIBAY, A.Y. (2000). Kamusal Alan Diyalojik Demokrasi Sivil İtiraz, ALFA Basım Yayım

Dağıtım, Birinci Baskı, İstanbul.

SETA (2013). Electronic Document: (http://file.setav.org/Files/Pdf/20130916162138_

kurguilegerceklikarasindagezieylemleri_rapor.pdf).

SEZER, T. and Sezer, B. (2013). “Herkes için Türkçe Derlem TS Corpus.” 27. Ulusal Dilbilim

Kurultayı. Kemer: Hacettepe Üniversitesi

SLAATTA, T. (2006). Europeanisation and the news media: issues and research imperatives,

Vol.13, No. 1, pp. 5 – 24, (Electronic Dokument: (http://javnost-thepublic.org/article

/pdf/2006/1/1/)

STATON, C.D. (1994). Democracy’s Quantum Leap. Demos Quartly, 3:31-2. Aktaran: Meyer T.

and Hinchman, L. (2002). Medya Demokrasisi, Çeviren: Ahmet Fethi, Türkiye İş Bankası

Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul.

LOW, S. & SMITTH, N. (2006), The Politics of Public Space, RoutledgeTalor and Francis Group,

LLC, New York

MADRA, Ö. & McHENRY, K. (2013). “Bomba Değil Yiyecek”, Electronic Document:

http://www.bianet. org/bianet/siyaset/35625-bomba-degil-yiyecek

92  

ÖZGÜL, .G.E. (2012), “Bir Görme Biçimi olarak Yeni Medya: Kamusal Bir Alan İmkanının

Araştırılması” Journal Of Yaşar University, 26(7)4526-4547 (Electronic Document:

http://joy.yasar.edu.tr)

TAYCAN, O. (2013). “Gezi Hadise’si ve Mizah”, Electronic Document:

http://www.birikimdergisi.com/birikim/makale.aspx?mid=1038&makale=GeziHadises

i ve Mizah

TAYLOR, C . (2001). “On Social Imaginary”, Contemporary Sociologıcal Theory.

YILMAZ, H.F. (2013). Kışla-i Humayun ve İnönü Gezisi’nin Tarihi, Önce Mesire Yeri Sonra

Kışla, Stadyum, En Sonunda Park, (Electronic Document: (http:// www.

yasarkenyazilantarih.com)