The parable of copycat headlines under Erdogan regime in Turkey

Abstract Press freedom is considered one of the most important fundamental rights. A free and independent media empowers a well-informed society and helps to scrutinise transparent governance. This paper reveals one of a kind strategy that has emerged in Turkey over the last decade under President Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party. Early research points out some of the methods used by Erdogan, however, overlooks a major trend that has only encountered during Erdogan’s rule: Providing the media with ready-made articles to such an extent that newspapers with identical headlines hit the streets. Covering more than 2,000 days between 2013 and 2018, this study conducted an extensive content analysis, tracking the front pages of 50,000 newspapers and examining the headlines of more than 600,000 front-page stories.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Alparslan Akkus is a scholar and an international journalist with more than 20 years' experience.He has worked as a reporter, editor, columnist, and TV commentator.He writes about freedom of expression, human rights, and foreign policy issues at The Huffington Post.Akkus has published a weekly Turkish-English edition of The New York Times.Scholarly, he focuses on migration studies and social policy research.His areas of interest include political communication, populism, public diplomacy, and networked social movements.His dissertation, which analyses Twitter Diplomacy during Turkey's notorious Gezi Park Protests from a public diplomacy perspective, was published in London in 2023.

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
For The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and The Washington Post in the United States, or The Times, The Mirror and The Guardian in the United Kingdom, or Bild, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Welt in Germany to publish identical headlines on the same day is unimaginable.Let alone in democratic countries where freedom of the press is valued, is it possible even in repressive regimes like Russia or China that the pro-government newspapers would be published with exactly the same headline?But in Turkey, it has become commonplace for citizens to wake up on an ordinary day, without any significant developments, and see some six or sixteen newspapers hit the streets with the same copycat headline.It shows the limits of government intervention in the media and is a clear proof of what happens when a regime starts holding its grip on the newsrooms.

Introduction
Despite the rise of new media, newspapers continue to play an important role in content production and agenda setting.Due to the diversification of mass media with breakthroughs in information technologies, the number of newspapers and their circulation is declining.Notwithstanding the demise of traditional media, newspapers are still an important source of new information and are still considered the largest contributor to media ecosystems (B.I. Gross, 2021).Agenda-setting alerts populace to what the news media consider to be the most important issues (M.McCombs, 2005).Briefly, by covering some particular issues, especially on the front pages of newspapers, and ignoring some others, the media set the agenda of public discourse (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1996).
On the other hand, a politician, especially an autocrat, may seek to control the media since the power of propaganda in agenda-setting and manipulating masses is beyond dispute.For instance, in pre-World War II Germany, as the state radio broadcasts increased their support for the Nazi regime, the rate of denouncing Jews and deporting them to concentration camps in historically anti-Semitic regions was also increased (Adena et al., 2013).
Pro-regime propaganda may not always persuade citizens but even in that case propaganda may still hinder unpersuaded masses to take part in, for instance, an anti-government popular protest.The main reason behind this timid popular behaviour is that propaganda may spread an apprehension to populaces about the autocrat's eagerness to use force to retain power.In particular, citizens perceive that an autocrat who continuously disseminates ostentatious positive pro-regime propaganda may be implying that he is so unconstrained for repression and at the same time he does not humiliate himself to seek their support (Carter & Carter, 2021).Fallen into dictator trap and detached from reality, an autocrat lives in his own privileged world and does not deal with mundane issues of masses (Klaas, 2022).For instance, Erdogan is fervently announcing ambitious, yet illusory, space programs and aiming a moon landing in 2023 so as to become an actor in global space race (McKernan, 2021) with colossal budgets while 90% of Turkey's population living below poverty line (Duvar English, 2022).
As Gursel (2013) explained in his article published at Al-Monitor, enjoying his extreme powers and refusing to share it with anyone else, Erdogan is "a personality that instils fear in his party AKP, in the state structure and the society."In game theoretic terms, an autocrat's personality and his real intentions can be understood by looking at the way he uses the propaganda apparatus.Huang (2015) describes how the Chinese government uses propaganda tool: "Such propaganda is not meant to 'brainwash' people with its specific content about how good the government is, but rather to forewarn the society about how strong it is via the act of propaganda itself." This paper focuses on government intervention in media in the context of Turkey's rising competitive authoritarian regime (TheEconomist, 2016) and seeks to expose the government's unprecedented effort on media content production.Previous studies have already mentioned media capture theories, impositions of political elites and censorship on the media (Enikolopov & Petrova, 2015;P. Gross & Jakubowicz, 2012;Mungiu-Pippidi, 2012;Ryabinska, 2014;Yanatma, 2021;Yesil, 2018), but the research so far has either ignored or overlooked a mounting trend in Turkey: The fashion how Erdogan regime is feeding media outlets with ready-made content and the parable of identical, copycat headlines appearing on front page of newspapers on any given day.This brand-new practice has been only experienced during the Erdogan regime.In order to understand the extent of media control, this study examined almost all newspapers across the entire spectrum in Turkey for 2,000 days between 2013 and 2018, and extensively analysed five examples of copycat headlines found using the content analysis method.
Following a key literature review on the dynamics of influence on press freedom and the evolution of the Turkish media system in the next section and a detailed description of the methodology in the subsequent section, this paper will reveal one of a kind strategy exerted by Erdogan.The findings will be triangulated with in-depth interviews with journalists and editors.Before concluding the findings, this paper will also take a brief look at the stakeholders and actors used in Erdogan's new strategy to orchestrate the feeding of the media with ready-made content.

Dynamics of influence on press freedom
Press freedom and the agenda-setting role of the media are interconnected concepts that play a crucial role in democratic societies (B.I. Gross, 2021).The media's ability to freely operate and report on various issues has a direct impact on setting the public agenda and shape public opinion (M.McCombs, 2005;M. E. McCombs & Shaw, 1972).
In theory, press freedom means the ability of journalists and media outlets to act independently without fear of censorship or undue interference from external actors, especially states.In practice, however, press freedom is subject to influences and restrictions from a variety of dynamics (Maniou, 2022).The dynamics of influence on press freedom in Western world media systems (see Hallin & Mancini, 2004 for three different models and a fourth model describing post-Communist European countries which Hallin and Mancini added in 2017 to their classification following extensive criticisms) are not primarily or exclusively related to the external characteristics of media systems, but rather the internal characteristics of these media systems are equally important.The authors propose to classify media regimes according to four key dimensions: i) the degree of state intervention in the media, ii) the degree of political parallelism, iii) the sophistication of the media market, and iv) the level of professionalism of journalists (Hallin & Mancini, 2004, 2017).
In the broader global context, threats to press freedom and journalism have become increasingly prevalent (Maniou, 2022).Several factors contribute to these threats: (1) Legal Restrictions and Censorship: Some governments have enacted laws that restrict press freedom, such as the Counterterrorism Act and the National Security Act, which are often used to suppress critical reporting.The government can also resort to censorship, such as blocking websites and shutting down news outlets that question its authority or expose corruption (Chang & Manion, 2021).
(2) Violence and Harassment: Journalists around the world face physical violence, threats, and intimidation, especially when covering sensitive issues and conflict areas.Such attacks not only endanger individual journalists but also create a climate of fear that hinders independent journalism (Bieber, 2018).
(3) Economic Pressure: The digital revolution has disrupted traditional business models in the media industry and has created financial challenges for many news organisations.As a result, journalists face job insecurity, fewer resources for investigative reporting, and an increased reliance on advertorials or sponsored content, compromising journalistic independence (Papadopoulou & Maniou, 2021).
(4) Disinformation and Misinformation: The rise of social media and online platforms is rapidly spreading disinformation and undermining the credibility of traditional journalism.Manipulators use this environment to spread false narratives, mistrust credible news sources, and further undermine public trust in the media (Shahbaz & Funk, 2019).
(5) Political Influence and Polarisation: In some countries, media ownership is in the hands of a few influential individuals or companies with specific political goals.This concentration of media ownership can lead to biased reporting and the promotion of particular discourses, which exacerbates political polarisation and hinders the media's agenda setting role in a diverse and balanced manner (Haselmayer et al., 2017).
A recent example of legal restrictions is the extreme measures taken by governments around the world to track the spread of COVID-19 and defend public health.Many governments across the globe utilised the pandemic as an excuse to impose restrictions that prevent basic reporting (Maniou, 2022).The pandemic worsens existing deterrents to press opportunity and contains untapped measurements to the already recorded threats (Marsili, 2021).This can be seen not only in authoritarian states but also in mature Western democracies (Palmer, 2022).
State intervention on media is one of the most popular subjects that researchers in social sciences has paid a significant attention to.The existing literature provides a useful conceptual framework on types of intervention on press and plays a vital role in identifying some highly exerted methods of censorship, which hampers citizens to have access to impartial and transparent political information (Hallin & Mancini, 2004).
State interference can occur in both direct and indirect ways which influence the ability of media to function unreservedly and effectively in their agenda-setting role (Maniou, 2022).Legal limitations, censorship, and licensing necessities forced by the governments can be included among direct forms of state intervention (Coyne & Leeson, 2009).These policies permit the state to exert control over the media content and to restrain the diversity of opinions and the information available to the public (Maniou, 2022).
On the other hand, indirect forms of state intervention may be more unpretentious, but in reality they are similarly capable.These incorporate economic pressures, political influence, and control of media ownership (Coyne & Leeson, 2009).Economic pressure that may lead to self-censorship or advancement of certain narratives in favour of the state may emerge from advertising regulations or financial incentives given to media companies (Maniou, 2022).
Likewise, the intertwined relationships between media organisations and political actors as well as bias in coverage of politics (Haselmayer et al., 2017;King et al., 2013;van der Pas et al., 2017;Voltmer, 2008) can also be regarded as an indirect form of state intervention.Political influence arises when the government controls media institutions through patronage, coercion, or the appointment of sympathetic individuals to key media positions (van der Pas et al., 2017).
In the area of state intervention, media capture is a particular problem.It occurs when powerful individuals or entities or business elites, especially if they are linked to government officials, exercise control over media outlets to promote their own interests (Enikolopov & Petrova, 2015).
Media capture, by skewing coverage towards particular viewpoints or biases, undermines the independence of the media and their ability to set the agenda (Mungiu-Pippidi, 2012).Media capture can result in the media prioritising certain issues and downplaying others, thus serving the interests of the captors rather than those of the public (Coşkun, 2020;Yesil, 2018).
The effect of state intervention and media capture on the agenda-setting role of the media is noteworthy.When governments exercise direct or indirect control over media content, they can control public discourse, stifle alternative viewpoints, and smother elective perspectives (Besley & Prat, 2006).State intervention reduces the diversity of information available to the public and limits the range of issues that make it onto the agenda.This can lead to biased reporting, the exclusion of critical stories, and the advancement of narratives that serve the government's interests (Guerrero & Márquez-Ramírez, 2014;Ryabinska, 2014).
Building on media capture theories, Besley and Prat (2006) argue that, even if there is no formal censorship, the capture of media by political institutions hampers the media in playing a watchdog role.At this point, various studies in different countries have proved the impact of media politicisation on hindering the reliability of media as a source of information and its role as a watchdog (Enikolopov & Petrova, 2015;Guerrero & Márquez-Ramírez, 2014;Ryabinska, 2014;Yesil, 2018).The agenda-setting function of the media is often manipulated by state-controlled or partisan narratives that serve particular interests in repressive regimes where press freedom is restricted (B.I. Gross, 2021).
In political systems wandering away from democracy to autocracy, mainstream media becomes the primary target of an autocrat in establishing a loyal media for his purpose.And generally an autocrat does not hesitate to use extreme measures including censorship, economic pressure, threats, jailing of journalists, and transfers of ownership (Bajomi-Lázár, 2013;Bieber, 2018).
Likewise, authoritarian regimes are poised to politicise media for their rise and survival to create a political environment where they can control any likely competition and suppress any opposing idea (Yildirim et al., 2021).
As Linz (2022) mentioned, "in sultanistic-authoritarian regimes, arbitrary and unpredictable use of power and the weakness of the limited political pluralism is widely observed."Mungiu-Pippidi (2012) suggests that in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe, "media systems followed trajectories that involve varying levels of liberalisation, capture of media institutions by political and economic actors, and state censorship."Similarly, Stojarová (2020) argues that governments create a media ecology of self-censorship whereby "journalists come under pressure to conform to the ruling political agenda," which is also experienced in many Balkan countries.
However, the main duty of a diverse media is to present opposing views and different opinions to inform the society (M.E. McCombs & Shaw, 1972).In other words, in a media ecosystem where press freedom is secured, media outlets produce original and diverse political information in the interest of citizens without fear of being censored or restrained by the government (Lauk, 2008;Shahbaz & Funk, 2019).Likewise, Dahl (1971) mentions the importance of access to alternative sources of information as a definitive characteristic of democracies: "Opportunities to oppose the government, form political organisations, express oneself on political matters without fear of governmental reprisals, read and hear alternative points of view, . . .etc." The press, which supposed to take on the watchdog role in a democracy, informs the citizens about exactly what is going on in a country and in this way checks the government (Stojarová, 2020).The way the press scrutinises a government allows populaces to make informed decisions about what actions to take about their political representatives while casting their votes into ballot boxes or through other civil society initiatives of political participation (Lavigne, 2019).
Editors, as gatekeepers, play the most important role in disseminating information through their media organisations and constantly present news suggesting what public should think about, know about and have feelings about (Cohen, 1963).Particularly, newspaper front-pages are of the utmost importance in shaping the public opinion.There are two main reasons behind this: firstly, front page stories are the main drivers of the sales figures and secondly, newspapers set the agenda through the front-page stories, particularly the headline story (B.I. Gross, 2021).On a daily basis, generally in the afternoon, the editors get together in an exclusive budget meeting with the editor-in-chief and decide the headline and also what other stories to run on the front-page of their publication (Sumpter, 2000).During this budget meeting, editors from each section of the newspaper suggest and fight for possible stories for the front-page.The goal of the section editors and editor-in-chief is to pick the most newsworthy story that will also sell their newspaper (Ajrouch, 1998;Sumpter, 2000).Based upon these approaches, the headline selection and pitching of the news stories for the front-page is vital in newspaper production.
In choosing and displaying selected news, the editors, newsroom staff, and broadcasters play an important part in shaping political reality (M.E. McCombs & Shaw, 1972).As Lang and Lang (1972) observed, the mass media attracts attention to certain issues.They have the means to build up positive or negative public images of particular political figures.
For instance, Erdogan is portrayed as a "hero" in Turkish media when he slammed Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres at Davos in 2009 (Bennhold, 2009), or as "saviour of the country" (Palacios, 2018) after the military coup attempt of 2016, or "finance genius" when he asserted that, "Interest rates are the reason, and inflation is the result" (TheEconomist, 2022).As Carter and Carter (2021) states, citizens in autocracies interpret these fulsome allusions as threats.
Press freedom has been mentioned as one of the main fundamental rights in international documents before 1950s.In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948), and in the European Convention on Human Rights (European Convention on Human Rights, 2021), the right to freedom of expression is explicitly secured.
As a signatory party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, the Republic of Turkey is obliged to respect and protect the rights set out in these binding treaties.Apart from these international agreements, Turkey has also expressed its domestic commitment to defend press freedom.The current Turkish constitution also guarantees freedom of the press (Turkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasa, 1982).
Article 28: The press is free, and shall not be censored.The establishment of a printing house shall not be subject to prior permission or the deposit of a financial guarantee.The State shall take the necessary measures to ensure freedom of the press and information.In the limitation of freedom of the press, the provisions of Article 26 and 27 of the constitution shall apply.
However, these guarantees have never truly protected freedom of press or journalists in Turkey.The history of the Turkish press is at the same time the history of threatened and fired journalists and also censored news media and captured media organisations.Throughout the history of Turkish media, journalists were also harassed, imprisoned, exiled, or killed through formal and informal methods due to their opinions critical of the government or the Turkish state (Demir, 2021).

Media landscape in Turkey before Erdogan
The early newspapers in Turkish history, even the private ones, were established as a result of political initiatives, not because of social demand or economic conditions.The Turkish press has always been open to influence from the state and political powers through its 200 years of history (Demir, 2007).Instead of defending democratic values and principles, the mainstream Turkish press concordantly supported the military interventions in 1960in , 1971in , and 1980in (Alpay, 2010)).
Prior to the 1980s, Turkey's media system was organised around a dual structure of state-owned broadcasting and privately owned press.While broadcasting operations and infrastructure remained firmly under the control of the state, commercially owned print media began to develop from the 1950s, thanks to the transition to a multi-party system and relative economic growth (Yesil, 2016).These commercial print enterprises, which were mostly family-owned (i.e., their owners were journalists themselves or came from families that had been in publishing business for several generations), sought to sustain themselves through advertising revenues (Yesil, 2016).However, given the lack of a developed advertising market and the country's general economic difficulties, newspaper owners still had to rely on subsidies and government-funded advertising.Their impartiality was thus compromised as they became entangled in patron-client relationships with political circles (Kurban & Sözeri, 2011).The late 1970s and early 1980s were no easier for these "press families" as they were increasingly burdened by persistent economic crises, low circulations, and the migration of advertisers to the new medium of television (Kaya & Çakmur, 2010).They began to seek capital flows either by venturing into non-press sectors or by forming partnerships with non-press entities.For instance, the Ilicak family, which owned the leading daily Tercuman, started non-press ventures, while the Karacan family sold half of its shares in Milliyet to an up-and-coming businessman, Aydin Dogan (Yesil, 2016).Dogan would go on to take full ownership of the paper, becoming Turkey's biggest media mogul in the 1990s.This wave of change accelerated in the 1980s, particularly as a result of the liberalisation of the newsprint market.First, the quotas on newsprint prices were lifted, and then computers and new printing technologies came, which increased operating costs, while circulation and advertising revenues kept on decrease (Adakli, 2022).In a field crowded with ten national dailies all competing for a total circulation of four million, newspaper owners inevitably began to look for robust capital flows (Yesil, 2016).
The change in ownership structures and the rise of conglomerates increased the vulnerability of the print media to government pressure, as these giant corporations depended on government licences, subsidies, and privatisation deals to operate in non-media sectors.This led to a loss of editorial independence, degradation in journalistic professionalism, and an increase in partisanship (Kurban & Sözeri, 2011).
By 1995, a total of 70% of newspapers and 87% of magazines were owned by two capital groups, Aydin Dogan and Dinc Bilgin (Kadıoglu, 2018).In addition, by the mid-1990s the broadcasting sector and its extensions in the print media were dominated by six players: the Dogan Group (Aydin Dogan), the Sabah Group (Dinc Bilgin), the Aksoy Group (Erol Aksoy), the Ihlas Group (Enver Oren), the Cukurova Group (Mehmet Emin Karmamehmet), the Uzan Group (Cem Uzan), and the Feza Group (Kadıoglu, 2018).
The economic crisis of 2001 had a domino effect on the media industry.Several banks, which also have majority shares in media business, collapsed, and then the Tasarruf Mevduatı Sigorta Fonu (TMSF), or the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund, took over their media assets and auctioned them off.Some large media conglomerates (Bilgin, Uzan, and Ihlas) were eliminated and the entry of new players, both foreign (CanWest and NewsCorp) and domestic (Dogus, Ciner), were facilitated.After 2008, this transformation deepened with the emergence or strengthening of pro-AKP media companies (Calik Group, Ethem Sancak, Erdogan Demiroren, Kalyon Group, Zirve Holding, and Ipek-Koza Group) and a consequent increase in partisanship (Yesil, 2016).

State-media relations during the rise of Erdogan
Particularly in the last two decades, the Turkish government's systematic effort to silence the media in the country is all about preventing public scrutiny and fortifying the one-man rule (Cagaptay, 2018).During the AKP government under Erdogan, freedom of press was compromised; media organisations were often censored, fined or shut down; and journalists were imprisoned, exiled, or killed (CPJ, 2016;FreedomHouse, 2017;HRW, 2016;IFJ, 2021;IPI, 2020).These methods, some of which were carried out by the Kemalist establishment in the past, entail a disproportionate use of state apparatus to silence the media (Kinzer, 1997;Pope, 1997;Taspinar, 2005).
As Demir (2021) explicitly demonstrated, Turkish newspapers and news channels were constantly intervened by Erdogan.His thirst for control is not satisfied with silencing critical media.Moreover, Erdogan meticulously implanted a "press commissary" into almost every single critical media organisation to control the flow of news there.This unspoken yet systematic practice was revealed by the now infamous "Alo Fatih," or "Hello Fatih" hotline leak which was also confirmed by then-Prime Minister Erdogan (Akkus, 2014).He insults and yells at the senior executive named Fatih on the phone for broadcasting a news ticker which reads the views of the leader of MHP, or National Movement Party, then an opposition political party.Right after the phone call, the news ticker was quickly removed from the broadcast (HurriyetDailyNews, 2014).
As Polat (2022) describes in his book, a taped conversation posted anonymously on social media in early 2014 depicts a heated phone conversation between then-Prime Minister Erdogan and Erdogan Demiroren, the head of the Demiroren Media Group.Erdogan Demiroren, the elderly media boss on the other end of the line during this leaked conversation, literally burst into tears as PM Erdogan kept scolding him for a displeasing report published in Milliyet, a newspaper belongs to Demiroren Media Group.The tapes with similar content, which are not rejected by the parties involved, including PM Erdogan, reveal what had long been suspected by the critics, that mainstream media tycoons essentially were, and had long been, captives of the political rule.With huge business investments in various sectors, the media bosses were being held under the thumb (Polat, 2022).
One other example, extensively reported by Yavuz Baydar (2016) in his Dogangate article, deliberately shows the extent of government interference in media content.In 2016, emails leaked by hacking group Redhack purport to show the then head of the Dogan Media Group Mehmet Ali Yalcindag reporting regularly on editorial decisions to energy minister Berat Albayrak, who is also Erdogan's son-in-law and to his elder brother Serhat Albayrak, head of the pro-government Turkuvaz Media Group which also owns Sabah daily.
The government also took new steps to stiffen the control over social media.International media watchdog reports revealed that Internet freedom continued to decline in Turkey and that hundreds of websites were blocked (FreedomHouse, 2021;Shahbaz & Funk, 2019).Turkey continued to be the worst country in the world in terms of Twitter censorship, with the highest number of third-party takedown requests, court orders and accounts and tweets withheld (Twitter, 2021).
International media watchdogs have always claimed that in Turkey there is a policy of deliberate censorship aimed at suppressing critical and dissenting voices (AmnestyInternational, 2012;CPJ, 2016;FreedomHouse, 2022;HRW, 2016;IFJ, 2021;IPI, 2020;RSF, 2021).But the reality is much worse than censorship under Turkey's elected president (Nasralla & Andrea, 2017) Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his AKP rule.The limits of Erdogan regime in suppressing free media go far beyond any known strategy.

Methodology
As stated in previous sections, governments seek to influence media content, not only in autocracies but also in mature democracies because the media play a significant role in shaping public opinion and agenda setting.The research questions are as follows: (1) What are the limits and indicators of a government's media repression?
(2) Through which instruments and institutions does a government control media content?
Selecting Erdogan regime in Turkey as a case study, I conducted an extensive content analysis covering the headlines of daily newspapers across the spectrum published during a period starting from May 2013 to the end of 2018.This period was selected because May 2013 was the time when the notorious Gezi Park protests erupted and the first signals of Erdogan's authoritarian tendencies were publicly discerned, and he started to control the media completely (Oz, 2016).The ruling AKP brutally suppressed the peaceful Gezi protests in 2013 and started to establish a populist authoritarian regime (Yilmaz et al., 2022).
The media landscape in Turkey during this period was very vivid and changing with numbers of media organisations being shut down by the government.A significant portion of the newspapers investigated in this study are not existing now since the attacks on independent media following the failed coup attempt on 15 July 2016 intensified (HRW, 2016).In this study, the political tendencies of the newspapers were ignored for two reasons; firstly, as clearly shown in section 4, the copycat headline incident was encountered across the entire media spectrum, including those which deem to be critical of the government.And secondly, the political leanings of the newspapers during this period have changed so quickly depending on the media ownership relations, media capture, and government pressure (Yanatma, 2021).
The headlines and front-page stories of newspapers published in Turkey were tracked for a six-year period using Basinda Bugun, or Press Review Today, a tool of t24.com, an independent news platform, and alternatively gazeteoku.com,a news website.Both T24 platform and GazeteOku website are compiling front page visuals of newspapers published in Turkey.And one can select any date with the help of a drop-down menu and see all the newspapers' front pages published on any given date.The websites compile almost the entire spectrum of Turkey's national newspapers, including mainstream, opposition, pro-government, business, sports, and also English language newspapers on a daily basis and the number of compiled front pages on these websites vary from 24 to 32, depending on the number of newspapers published that day.Some newspapers are not published on the weekends, for instance, or some newspapers were shut down by a government decree following a failed coup attempt on July 2016 (HRW, 2016).
Layout of the front pages of newspapers also widely vary, but there are traditionally two major stories published with bigger fonts on the front page of a national newspaper in Turkey; the biggest story is called the headline and placed just below the newspaper logo across eight columns, generally with a picture; and the second big story is called sürmanset, or kicker, and placed generally above the newspaper logo without a picture.Content-wise, there are large and small some 12 front-page stories on a national newspaper on average, depending on the news budget.As a result, covering over 2,000 days and 50,000 newspaper front pages, the total number of frontpage stories analysed in this study exceeds 600,000.
While analysing this six-year-period between 2013 and 2018, I have encountered plenty of copycat headlines used by some two or three newspapers, mostly belonging to the same media group.Considering that these "minor" incidents are not qualified to build a theory upon, this paper includes only some of the major samples where at least seven newspapers have used an identical headline.On the other hand, I also excluded headlines with different wordings on the same topic.For example, a story about terrorism charges on Kurdish MPs appeared on the front page of some seven newspapers with similar-but not identical-headlines is also excluded in this study since similar headlines may also be reflecting the editors' own perspectives.
Additionally, in-depth interviews with ombudsmen, journalists, and editors were conducted to provide valuable insights which are discussed in the findings and analysis section.

Copycat headline by seven newspapers, 7 June 2013
Apart from instrumentalising the criminal justice system (ICJ, 2018) and direct interference in media content, Erdogan sought some pre-emptive remedies to forestall any inconvenience to be created by media organs: Feeding media by ready-made content.
Feeding media with tailored content or ready-made content is a new practice that has been experienced only during the Erdogan regime.The research so far has either ignored or overlooked this mounting trend.
The first example, also mentioned by Finkel (2015), is the incident that seven newspapers were published with the same copycat headline during the notorious Gezi Park protests on 7 June 2013.As shown in Figure 1, the headline reads "Demokratik Taleplere Can Feda," or "I sacrifice for democratic demands" (T24, 2013a).
When Erdogan returned from a trip abroad to re-establish control over Gezi Park protests, seven national newspapers greeted him with the exact same headline-citing his willingness to sacrifice himself for true democracy.
The newspapers, which used the same copycat headline, were mostly then pro-government ones, namely Bugun, Haber Turk, Sabah, Star, Turkiye, Yeni Safak, and Zaman.Among these newspapers, Bugun and Zaman were captured by the government through appointing trustees (Letsch, 2016) and then shut down by a government decree following the failed military coup attempt of 15 July 2016 (HRW, 2016).

Copycat headline by nine newspapers, 16 August 2013
The second copycat headline incident occurred 2 months later on 16 August 2013, when Erdogan spoke during a press conference held at Ankara Airport.This time nine newspapers, including the mainstream media, opted for again citing Erdogan.As given in Figure 2, the headline reads "Bir Musa Çıkar, Hesabını Sorar," or "One day the Pharaoh will face Moses" (T24, 2013b).
In his speech, Erdogan criticised the West for remaining silent against the massacre by the Egyptian government that came into power after a coup d'état in 2013.Referring to the Quranic account of the fight between Prophet Moses and the Pharaoh in ancient Egypt, "I sacrifice for democratic demands" Bugun, Haber Turk, Sabah, Star, Turkiye, Yeni Safak, and Zaman newspapers used the same identical headline on 7 June 2013.

Source: T24 (2013a).
Erdogan criticises the massacre in Tahrir Square of Cairo and urges the Egyptian government and also the Western powers-to be held accountable and to pay the price for this massacre.

Copycat headline by 16 newspapers, 14 February 2018
On 14 February 2018, after a mounting crackdown on free press following the military coup attempt on 15 July 2016, this time a record number of 16 newspapers, mostly mainstream ones, hit the streets with the same exact copycat headline reading "Osmanlı Tokatı Yememişler," or "They deserve an Ottoman Slap" (GazeteOku, 2018a; T24, 2018a) as shown in Figure 3.
As the story reads, Erdogan offers US an "Ottoman slap" ahead of tense US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's visit to Turkey.Ankara demands Washington D.C. to withdraw support for Syrian Kurdish militia, which is regarded as a terrorist organisation by Turkey, as gulf between the two NATO allies widens.

Copycat headline by 16 newspapers, 13 August 2018
Some months later, on 13 August 2018, this time again 16 newspapers did not bother to run the same headline when Erdogan blamed interest lobbies in the US and in the UK for increasing exchange rates in Turkey during a public speech in the northern city of Trabzon.This was not the first time Erdogan blamed interest rate lobby for bad economy management.In many of his public speeches, Erdogan repeatedly said anyone opposing interest rate cuts was guilty of treason.For instance, on 28 February 2015, Erdogan stepped up his rhetoric: "There is a very serious threat from the interest-rate lobby," he told a news conference broadcast live on one of Turkey's pro-government news channel NTV (Yackley & Pomeroy, 2015).

Source: GazeteOku (2018a); T24 (2018a).
"Anyone who defends these high rates is at the beck and call of the interest-rate lobby, this is treason against this nation," said Erdogan on the same live broadcast.As Erdogan criticises the monetary policy and pushes the central bank to cut interest rates, investors who fear the central bank could lose its independence are highly concerned, since the speculation that has helped push the lira to record lows (Yackley & Pomeroy, 2015).
Two years after the Gezi Park protests, on 4 March 2015, some 14 columnists (and additionally one commentator writing on the pro-government A Haber website) penned a story of Zehra Develioglu, daughter-in-law of then-mayor of Istanbul's Bahcelievler district Osman Develioglu from the ruling AKP.According to these 15 columnists, Zehra Develioglu was attacked by an antigovernment mob in Kabatas district of Istanbul during notorious Gezi Park protests.
The wordplay in Turkish as the words "shameless" (kaba) and "stone" (taş) make up the word "Kabataş," referring to the scene of the alleged attack.All the columnists capitalised or wrote in bold the words KABA and TAS in the headline so as to make sure their readers do not miss the creative wordplay.They all used the same headline word-for-word but only Abdülkadir Selvi of Yeni Şafak made a slight alteration with using the word "Yürek" (heart) instead of "Vicdan" (conscience), both have the same meaning in this context.
According to the story told by these columnists, dozens of half-naked men had attacked and urinated on Develioglu, who was waiting for her husband, along with her six-month-old baby, in Kabatas on 1 June 2013.The footage from security cameras at the scene emerged months later, however, did not show any evidence of such an attack.But still the claims, along with the slander of Gezi Park protesters drinking alcohol in the mosque, had been raised by Erdogan multiple times in his public speeches and occasionally resurfaced in the pro-government media from time to time (SCF, 2021).

Discussion
Is it possible for editors across the spectrum to independently write the exact same headline as other newspapers on a given day?World-renowned journalist and ombudsman Faruk Bildirici (personal communication, 18 June 2023) noted in an email conversation that "though unlikely," it is technically possible."If there is only one striking aspect of an event that is indisputably newsworthy, or if there is only one side of a speech that is highly newsworthy, the editors of different newspapers can write headlines with the same point of view," Bildirici said.
The front pages of major US newspapers on 12 September 2001, the day after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, were examined to see how American newspapers reported the horror on their front pages.As you might imagine, the entire front pages of the American newspapers were devoted to this incident, but each newspaper used a different photo of the Twin Towers burning under a cloud of smoke and wrote a different headline.The New York Times wrote "U.S. ATTACKED" in capital letters across nine columns; the Washington Post summarised the attack in a nine-column headline as "Terrorists Hijack 4 Airliners, Destroy World Trade Center, Hit Pentagon; Hundreds Dead"; USA Today preferred to write "Act of War" with a close-up photo of the burning Twin Towers; while The Examiner wrote "BASTARDS!" in capital letters (Place, 2022).
Moreover, the front pages of major British newspapers on 9 September 2022, the day after Queen Elizabeth II's death, were also examined to see how they commemorated Britain's longestreigning monarch.The Times used a portrait of the Queen released by the Royal Family with the headline reading "Death of the Queen".The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Express both used the same image as The Times, with the Telegraph's headline reading "Grief is the price we pay for love", while The Daily Express ran "OUR BELOVED QUEEN IS DEAD" in capital letters across its monochrome front page.The Guardian devoted its entire front page to the Beaton portrait of the Queen at her coronation on 2 June 1953.The Guardian did not use a headline but printed the year of the Queen's birth and death under her name.The Times of London also chose the same portrait of the Queen at her coronation in 1953 with the headline "A LIFE IN SERVICE" in capital letters."Our hearts are broken" said the Daily Mail, which also chose a picture of the Queen in her youth.The Financial Times used a candid photo of the young Queen with no headline just giving the year of her birth and death under her name.The Daily Mirror's front page featured the Queen's most famous profile, which appears on British stamps and coins.The paper pays its respects to the late Queen by saying "Thank you" (Crisp, 2022).
The number of examples can be increased with notable events, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of Soviet Russia, or the war in Ukraine, etc., but the result doesn't change: As seen from the coverage of these two important events, both of which marked the beginning of a new era in the world history, the headlines were written with the same point of view as Bildirici suggested but the editors independently chose different (though some overlapping) photographs and wrote totally different headlines.But in Turkey, on an ordinary day, without any significant development, citizens waking up a day and seeing some six or sixteen newspapers hitting the streets with the same copycat headline has become an ordinary situation.
World-renowned journalist and ombudsman Yavuz Baydar (personal communication, 21 June 2023) noted in an email exchange that it is not normally possible for editors to independently write the exact same headline as other newspapers."But in Turkey, it has become possible.It has been a clear proof of what happens when a regime starts holding its grip on the media ownership and the newsrooms," added Baydar, who also chaired the International Organisation of News Ombudsmen (ONO) in 2003.
In the first four examples of copycat headlines in this study, the editors wrote a quote from President Erdogan.I prefer to call them "copyquote" headlines."For the pro-government media, it is already a commonplace and now a regular occurrence to put Erdogan's words in the headlines on the days when he speaks," said Bildirici (personal communication, 18 June 2023) in an email exchange."The executives and editors of the pro-government media have internalised Erdogan's point of view and most of the time, they can now think on his behalf.So similar headlines can appear without even a warning," Bildirici added.
Offering a headline space for the power holders, in this case Erdogan, should not have been a proper journalistic conduct," said Baydar (personal communication, June 21, 2023) in his email and continued: "This pattern should only be understood to mean that the independent editorial decisions were no longer valid and that they were imposed by the power centres, belonging to the government and, later, the Palace.The aim certainly is the control and monopolisation of information, to lead or mislead the opinion of the public.
Content analysis is used to find patterns, themes, and underlying significance in headlines.Erdogan's words in the "copyquote" headlines reflect his habit of using familiar adages, phrases, or metaphors that resonate with the community.By speaking in the vernacular of the people, Erdogan provides the media with appealing headlines.On the other hand, Erdogan's colloquial words tend to refer to the glorious past such as the term "Ottoman slap" in example 3; or to religious literature such as "Moses" in example 2; and the tone he uses is either sacrificial as in example 1; or confrontational and accusatory as in examples 2, 3, and 4. The first four "copyquote" headlines reflect a certain degree of commitment to specific ideals or causes.Whether it is sacrifice for democratic demands, confronting oppressive figures, challenging deception, or delivering retribution, each headline suggests a level of conviction and dedication to particular principles or values.On the other hand, the headlines exhibit contrasting tones and language.These differences in tone can indicate variations in the expression of ideas and the intended impact on the audience.Headlines one and four convey a more positive connotation; in contrast, headlines two and three may carry a more negative connotation.
In example 1, the action described is "can feda" or "sacrifice," suggesting that Erdogan is giving up or compromising something.And the purpose seems to be that the sacrifice is made in the context of "democratic demands", suggesting that Erdogan is making sacrifices to support or uphold democratic principles or ideals.
In example 2, the headline (in the Turkish version) mentions only Moses and implies Pharaoh.Pharaoh refers to the ancient Egyptian rulers, and the prophet Moses is a central figure in the biblical and Quranic narrative who confronts Pharaoh.The headline suggests that there will be a future confrontation or encounter between Pharaoh (in this case Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the military commander who overthrew (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2023) the elected government of Mohammed Mursi in 2013) and Moses (here referring to Mursi) in the future.The use of "hesap sorar" or "face" indicates that Pharaoh will be held accountable and the present tense used in the sentence implies that this will happen in the unknown foreseeable future.
In example 3, a literal interpretation of the headline "Ottoman slap" might suggest that Erdogan believes Americans deserve to be physically punished or struck, whereas in the symbolic interpretation, the reference to the "Ottoman slap" might be seen as a metaphorical expression of a strong rebuke or critique, along with a reference to the powerful past of the Ottomans.
In example 4, the headline implies an awareness of deception that Erdogan has recognised or uncovered a trick or deceitful action.This suggests that he possesses a level of perceptiveness and discernment to see through the trick.On the other hand, the response described as a challenge indicates that Erdogan is not passively accepting the trick but actively confronting it.He is expressing his disagreement or resistance and potentially seeking to expose or counter the trick.Finally, the headline asserts an authority that suggests Erdogan sees himself as possessing the knowledge or insight to discern the truth.It conveys a sense of confidence and authority in Erdogan's ability to detect deception.
In example 5, the headline expresses a moral judgement, suggesting that the language used by the peaceful protestors is deemed inappropriate, lacking in decency or respect.Additionally, it implies that their lack of conscience or empathy, as represented by a "stone-hard" conscience, is viewed negatively.
According to experts who closely monitor Turkish media (It should be noted that most of the experts consulted either declined to comment or spoke on the condition of anonymity, except Baydar and Bildirici), Turkish editors do not feel comfortable with expressing their own opinions; instead, they opt in to use Erdogan's words as a headline so as to be on the safe side.In autocracies and in repressive regimes, self-censorship in the media gains ground and editors try not to disturb the ruling elites (Chang & Manion, 2021;Germano & Meier, 2013;Rudnik, 2020).Using a quote from Erdogan in the headline appears as the safest way of doing journalism in the country.An expert from Turkey, who asked to remain anonymous, noted that journalistic practices are changing in Turkey, as they do in all repressive regimes, and that quoting Erdogan is a kind of workaround that editors have developed to continue their profession.Bildirici (personal communication, 18 June 2023) commented that there are also some editors who publish in line with Erdogan's views out of concern, so that nothing will happen to them and that no problems will arise.Similarly, Baydar's comment below (personal communication, 21 June 2023) sheds light on the current state of the Turkish media: In Turkey, since the late 1980's, editors have been employed on the basis of loyalty to powers and proprietors rather than professional qualifications.Newsroom editors act, perhaps bizarrely, as "gatekeepers" to block stories that might anger or frustrate those in power; and more often than not, columnists' articles are subject to editors' content control, or self-censorship.The result, as of 2023, is that almost 95 per cent of the Turkish media is under such multi-layered content control, under the severe pressure from the regime.In general, "speaking truth to power" is a long-forgotten motto in the Turkish media.Rather, what it does is "speaking the language of power" to the people.
Most of the experts interviewed agree that journalists in the government-controlled media have already given up writing anything critical of the government to inform the public; at this stage, editors are in a race to the bottom to see how they can please the leader the most."Even the dissident-looking newspapers are controlled, they can only write minor critiques," said one expert (Anonymous, personal communication, 3 June 2023) in a Signal call conversation.
Self-censorship in mainstream Turkish media is now mostly automatic, according to multiple industry insiders.For instance, a TRT editor who talked to Reuters on the condition of anonymity (Spicer, 2022) said that when Orhan Pamuk became the first Turk to win the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2006, the Turkish state broadcaster mentioned the news only after then-Prime Minister Erdogan gave his official congratulations to Pamuk.Otherwise, the editor said, they would never have covered it.Following this information, Reuters reached out Pamuk, who told he was unaware that TRT had delayed coverage of his award in 2006, when the media was "relatively free" compared to today."In my 50 years of writing . . . the media/newspapers and reporting had never been bowing to the government as they are doing now," Pamuk said in an email to Reuters (Spicer, 2022).Bildirici's comment below (personal communication, 18 June 2023) is highly telling: It is known that the pro-government media is working in an organised manner with the AKP headquarters and the Communications Directorate, and that they have set up WhatsApp groups with the editors-in-chief.There is constant communication between them; the editorsin-chief receive instructions or warnings about headlines when it is deemed necessary.
In the journalistic tradition, a quote is always given in quotation marks to avoid any confusion and only the exact words of the source are placed within quotation marks.Quotations cannot be altered, even to correct grammatical errors or word usage (Han & Lee, 2013).But the headlines this study focused on used a quote from Erdogan and in general they are given without quotation marks.In Figure 1, only the Haber Turk newspaper and in Figure 2, only the Sabah newspaper used quotation marks.In Figures 3 and 4, no newspaper used quotation marks, whereas in Figure 4, Hurriyet Daily News and Turkiye newspapers used a colon to indicate attribution.It is difficult to report verbatim from these headlines what exactly Erdogan originally said in his speech because the quotes are written with tiny alterations.Some headlines used a specific word in the plural, while others preferred to use it in the singular, and in some headlines, editors either used or omitted a possessive suffix.Such alterations, which are used in Turkish grammar without changing the meaning, are apparently made in order to fit the headline into a proper space, usually eight columns and two lines.But in most cases, it seems that the quotation did not fit into the space provided, and the editors and page designers then preferred to use either a blurb or a small visual to fill the gap on the page.
Another element that needs to be included in the content analysis is the page design (Fürsich, 2009): Along with a "copyquote" headline, a large photo of Erdogan appears on the front pages.Most of the time, a powerful-looking photo is chosen, such as Erdogan potently sitting on a chair; or pointing his finger at the readers; or with a clenched fist, as seen in Figure 3, while the headline reads "They deserve an Ottoman Slap".This type of presentation in the newspapers, say industry experts, is an endeavour to position Erdogan as a strong world leader in the eyes of the wider public.In Figure 2, where the headline reads "One day the Pharaoh will face Moses", a photo of hundreds of dead bodies in white shrouds lying side by side in a mosque courtyard is juxtaposed with another photo of two men huddled together, crying in agony.In such a page layout, Bugun newspaper used a photo of US President Barack Obama playing golf; Milat newspaper used a photo of Obama with his feet up on the table while talking on the phone with a smiling face; Yeni Safak placed two separate photos of Obama and Sisi side by side to imply that they are together in this massacre; and Yeni Akit used photos of Obama, James Cameron, Ban Ki Moon, and Egypt's Sisi as the accomplices.And Erdogan, with a pointing finger or in some newspapers with a sad or angry face, was positioned as a leader challenging the world leaders who turned a blind eye to a massacre in Egypt.
Checking the aforementioned first four "copyquote" headline examples from Turkish newspapers, one may argue that the newspaper editors would have preferred to use a quote from Erdogan's public speech.That would be a naive approach though.And it falls short to explain how some 15 renowned columnists writing in different newspapers, all of a sudden, came up with the same story idea, and moreover, they all wrote the very exact copycat headline in their columns.Bildirici (2021) reminded in his blog post that the columnists who penned the Kabatas lie would apologise for publishing the columns about a fabricated incident."When I come across headlines that are identical word for word without any difference, it gives me the impression that these headlines have been issued with instructions from a single centre, or that they have been issued jointly after an exchange of ideas," Bildirici (personal communication, 18 June 2023) stated in an email exchange.Additionally, Baydar (personal communication, 21 June 2023) noted that "over the past decade, we have had several testimonies and signs that both the TV and print domains are under the strict surveillance of the regime, which has established 'Orwellian' mechanisms to rule over the media since 2017."Along with the above-mentioned four identical newspaper headlines, the copycat headlines of the columns give the impression that these articles, far from reflecting the diverse opinions of different minds, seem to have been orchestrated by a single centre of content producer or information provider.But who produces these "creative" headlines and services them to media outlets?

Stakeholders and actors in Erdogan's new strategy
There is evidence about two separate centres allegedly orchestrating these content production efforts; some argue that a special press unit within the Directorate of Communications supervised by Fahrettin Altun prepares and maintains these disinformation materials, while others claim that a covert media unit operated by Nuh Yilmaz within the Turkey's intelligence agency (MIT) organises the smear campaign.
According to a Reuters report (Spicer, 2022), instructions to newsrooms often come from officials at the government's Directorate of Communications, which handles media relations.The directorate is an Erdogan creation that employs some 1,500 people and is headquartered in a tower block in Ankara.It is headed by a former academic, Fahrettin Altun.
Similarly, Baydar (personal communication, 21 June 2023) also points to the Directorate of Communications as the key institution that monitors the entire media activity and gives instructions on what the pro-government and/or obedient media should publish on front pages and in major TV news programmes."The Directorate is an institution that acts as a 'supreme editor-inchief', a 'Big Brother over the media.'This model was coined by Joseph Goebbels and worked successfully under him, as we all remember," Baydar added.
The "media machine", as Spicer (2022) calls the Communications Directorate, employs media monitoring units, translators, legal and public relations staff inside and outside Turkey.It has 48 overseas bureaus in 43 countries.According to an insider who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, these outposts provide Ankara with weekly reports on how Turkey is being portrayed in foreign media (Spicer, 2022).When Erdogan appointed Altun as president of the newly established Directorate of Communications in 2018, he was little known in the news industry.He had previously worked at universities and then, unsurprisingly, at the pro-government think tank SETA.The Directorate's main task, with an annual budget of around 680 million Turkish liras ($38 million), is to coordinate government communications.As more than a dozen industry insiders told Reuters, it grew out of the old Directorate of Media, Press and Information, whose main role was to issue press cards to journalists but now has much broader responsibilities, including countering "systemic disinformation campaigns" against Turkey.As noted in a Friedrich Naumann Foundation Report (Ozpek, 2021), "Altun did not hesitate to say that his duties are to help the public perceive the president correctly and to combat negative perceptions about the president." The second argument also seems plausible since a former journalist, Nuh Yilmaz, has been appointed as Public Information Advisor of the Turkish National Intelligence Organisation (MIT), marking the first time that a person from outside the organisation has been assigned to this post.Yilmaz, a columnist for the pro-government daily Star, has been appointed as the press advisor in charge of public information for the Turkish intelligence organisation, according to a statement released by the MIT on 15 August 2013 (HurriyetDailyNews, 2013).The position of press advisor, which used to be a low-key job in the agency and doing nothing more than press scans and media reviews, was given new life when Yilmaz was brought on board.According to an SCF report (Bozkurt, 2018), most of the defamation campaigns against Erdogan's critics and opponents are being coordinated from Yilmaz's office.Several clandestine projects that belonged to other departments of the agency were also handed over to Yilmaz's office on the direct orders of Hakan Fidan, the head of MIT.The changes were often sugar-coated as reform efforts to bring more analytical experience to the agency in order to justify the overarching mandate of Yilmaz, a former academic, at the agency (Bozkurt, 2018).
Moreover, as reported by Leyla Fidan (2018) of ANF News, Erhan Pekcetin and Aydin Gunel, who were captured by HPG [the People's Defence Forces is the most active military wing of the PKK in Turkey (International Crisis Group, 2022)] in Southern Kurdistan [in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Sulaymaniyah on 4 August 2017], spoke about MIT's influence on Turkish media and revealed the identities of journalists who officially work with MIT.According to Pekcetin, as quoted in Fidan (2018), "MIT has a special unit for media relations.The unit is coordinated by Nuh Yilmaz, former director of the SETA foundation and a journalist.He took orders directly from Hakan Fidan, the head of MIT.I know that they have direct contact with Hande F. [Hande Firat, Ankara bureau chief of CNN Turk.]"More information has recently come to light linking Nuh Yilmaz to Hande Firat, who appears to be one of the high-value assets developed by MIT at CNN International's Turkish affiliate, CNN Turk.CNN Turk's Ankara bureau chief Hande Firat is also a TV presenter who made a name for herself after speaking to Erdogan via live FaceTime during the attempted military coup on the night of 15 July 2016.This conversation was of utmost importance for the government as Erdogan called on his supporters to take to the streets to show their support against the coup attempt.Interestingly, while Erdogan's call was still in progress and his video feed was being transmitted to the network via Fırat's mobile phone in front of live cameras, an incoming call from Nuh Yilmaz was displayed on her iPhone screen for 10 seconds (Bozkurt, 2018).

Conclusion and contribution to the literature
As many researchers, press freedom advocates and media watchdog organisations claim, press freedom is at stake around the world.All governments, to varying degrees, want to control the media content in any possible way.Post-COVID practices have proven that the media in Western democracies are also vulnerable.This research shows the limits of an oppressive regime in its venture to control the media.In a dystopian story like Orwell's Nineteen eighty-four, 1977one might imagine identical newspapers with the same headlines hit the streets, but no one would believe that this could become a reality.This paper demonstrates that, given the right conditions, a government would attempt to control the entire content of the media to such an extent that all newspapers would carry the same identical copycat headlines.Furthermore, this paper contributes to the literature by mapping the Erdogan government's interference in the media, exposing its covert media machine and revealing for the first time the extent of its interference.In addition, this paper sheds light on how journalistic practices change under repressive regimes, and what kinds of workarounds editors develop to continue their profession.
On the other hand, this paper shows that autocracies start suppressing the media before they become autocracies.As seen in Orhan Pamuk's Nobel Prize broadcast in 2006, when Erdogan was not considered an autocratic leader, media repression should be closely monitored as an alarming act to identify democratic regimes that have the potential to backslide.
Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has long sought total control of the media.Over the past decade, Erdogan has engineered the takeover of privately owned media outlets by appointing government-approved trustees to run them.In the aftermath of the failed military coup attempt on 15 July 2016, using state of emergency powers, Erdogan opted for full closure of numerous media outlets, newspapers, news agencies, radio, and television stations.
Under the Erdogan regime, the media freedom has been crippled beyond compare and one of a kind repression methods have been employed as the lack of press freedom has paved the way for his authoritarian one-man rule in Turkey.
Interestingly enough, Erdogan's deliberate content production efforts in the country have gone too far to such an extent that newspapers hitting the streets with identical headlines have become commonplace.On the face of it, feeding newspapers with the same content seems like a brainwashing effort, in search of mass coercive persuasion.However, the way it is being handled implies something more than a simple brainwashing or persuasion effort.Printing the copycat progovernment headlines in numerous mainstream newspapers is extremely humiliating that it can only be interpreted as a show of force.
As discussed in this paper, in game theoretic terms, such propaganda is not meant to "brainwash" people with its specific content about how good the government is, but rather to forewarn the society about how strong the autocrat is.The way Erdogan uses the media has nothing to do with brainwashing.He never abases or demeans himself in order to make the masses believe that he is doing everything perfectly.Moreover, such disgraceful propaganda may create a perception among the citizens about Erdogan's eagerness to use force to keep the power in his hands.In particular, the way Erdogan uses his media machine put the journalism profession to shame and it may spread the belief among the populaces that he is so unrestrained in his repression.
With this shameful propaganda strategy, Erdogan assures his supporters that he is mighty enough to bring to their knees the renowned journalists, who once criticised him; the media organisations that once had the power to topple the ruling government with a single headline; and the spearheads of the secular establishment along with the once powerful military brass.
Today, everyone in the country has to speak of him with a cautious appreciation.Among his supporters and the rank and file of his party, Erdogan is "reis" or boss; in the official bureaucratic milieu and among business tycoons, he is "beyefendi" or sir.He instils fear in the state structure and in society at large.He was portrayed as a "hero" when he slammed Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres in Davos in 2009; or "financial genius" when he claimed that interest rates were the cause, and inflation was the result; or as the "saviour of the country" after the attempted military coup in 2016.Citizens in autocracies interpret these fulsome allusions as threats.
As this paper analyses how pro-government, obedient, and mainstream media behave in repressive regimes, new researchers could also go one step further and analyse how journalistic practices of dissident media have changed.Another topic worthy of research is what I would call "controlled dissident media" in repressive regimes.
The copycat headlines, which actually mark the end of journalistic ethics and total kneeling of the entire media before Erdogan, serve as an apparent proof of his unbridled power.By succeeding in all his efforts to curb and subjugate the free media, Erdogan proves that he is the mighty strongman of Turkey.

Figure
Figure 1.Seven newspapers used the same identical headline on 7 June 2013.

Figure
Figure 4. Sixteen newspapers used the same identical headline on 13 August 2018.