Over recent years, there has been an intense and polarised debate about the extent of democratisation in Turkey, although this has tended to be defined in institutional terms (for example, in the supposed reduction in military tutelage of the political system and the institutional recognition of minority rights). This study seeks to widen the terms of reference by examining the current challenges confronted by the Turkish media within the media-democracy relationship and, using the Kurdish question as a case study, examines the extent to which mainstream Turkish Media are contributing to deliberative democracy. It also seeks to identify where the Turkish media should be most appropriately located within competing models of media and democracy. This analysis of the challenges confronted in achieving and protecting media freedoms in Turkey is based on three empirical exercises. Semi-structured elite interviews were conducted with representatives from most of the mainstream media organisations in the country. Interviews were also conducted with political party representatives, NGO members and academics to ascertain their opinions of the media s democratic performance and credentials and also explore the extent to which they engage with journalists and news organisations routinely in their work. Finally, a content analysis of the coverage/content of two specific events related to the Kurdish Issue (the launch of the Kurdish language TV Channel TRT6 and Uludere Airstrike) in five mainstream Turkish newspapers was conducted. The interviews reveal sharply contrasting views about the extent to which democratisation processes are progressing in Turkey, and identify a range of barriers that continue to inhibit the democratic performance of the mainstream media (e.g. commercialization, state censorship, and other forms of political pressure). The detrimental impact of these factors is to a large degree confirmed by the content analysis of coverage of the Kurdish issue, but the analysis also shows that news output does contain a degree of diversity and difference. For this reason, it is not appropriate to conceive of the Turkish media as acting entirely as a closed message system for political elites.

Submitted by Oliveira Santos Dilzaná (dilznana@yahoo.com.br) on 2016-08-02T13:14:27Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Messiluce da Rocha Hansen.pdf: 3293103 bytes, checksum: 20361ba2d1e5714977002ab8db6845ea (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Oliveira Santos Dilzaná (dilznana@yahoo.com.br) on 2016-08-08T11:52:28Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Messiluce da Rocha Hansen.pdf: 3293103 bytes, checksum: 20361ba2d1e5714977002ab8db6845ea (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-08T11:52:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Messiluce da Rocha Hansen.pdf: 3293103 bytes, checksum: 20361ba2d1e5714977002ab8db6845ea (MD5) / CAPES / A presente tese tem o propósito de contribuir para o processo de reconstrução do modelo de esfera pública das mídias incorporando as fortes conotações normativas da comunicação instituídas na democracia deliberativa. Para tanto, é realizada uma ampla revisão e análise dos modelos de esfera pública liberal e republicana e deliberativa salientando os nexos entre elas, bem como as formas como essas diferentes tradições do pensamento político concebem o processo de formação da opinião pública e delimitam os espaços e funções da participação popular na vida política democrática. De forma mais específica, a pesquisa usa o recurso analítico da síntese teórica para revisar o conceito de esfera pública de modo a oferecer uma resposta ao problema teórico de como conciliar as demandas comunicativas da democracia deliberativa com a percepção de que a mediação dos fluxos da comunicação política é feita de forma cada vez mais central na esfera pública constituída pelas mídias. A tese divide-se em duas partes complementares. Uma primeira, na qual, a partir de uma revisão da literatura dos modelos de democracia liberal, republicano e deliberativo e de seus subsequentes modelos de esfera pública, são discutidas as condições estruturais da formação democrática da opinião pública e da vontade política e, assim, das condições de legitimação democrática dos atos administrativos e legislativos do sistema político. E uma segunda, dedicada à reconstrução do modelo de esfera pública midiática a partir da noção de redes de esferas públicas múltiplas e parciais, dos princípios de acessibilidade e participação efetiva dos cidadãos na esfera pública e da diferenciação entre comunicação normativa e comunicação estratégica. Por fim, conclui-se que somente um sistema midiático organizado segundo a premissa da pluralidade de tipos de mídia, baseada na coexistência entre sistemas de mídia comercial, de serviço público, comunitário ou alternativo nos diferentes setores de mídia, pode constituir a base para o desenvolvimento de uma esfera pública midiática autolimitada e abrangente o suficiente para atender às fortes demandas comunicativas de regimes democráticos e, mais particularmente, da democracia deliberativa. The present dissertation proposes to reconstruct the mediatic model of public sphere by incorporating the strong communicative normative connotations found in deliberative democracy. As such, a comprehensive review and analysis was carried out of liberal, republican and deliberative public sphere models, stressing the interconnections between them and the ways these different traditions of political thought conceive processes that shape public opinion and define the spaces and functions of popular participation in democratic political life. More specifically, the research uses analytic techniques of theoretical synthesis to revise the concept of public sphere in order to provide a theoretical answer to the problem of how to reconcile the demands of communicative deliberative democracy with the perception that the mediation of communication policy is made ever more central to the public sphere constituted by the media. The thesis is divided into two complementary parts. The first, grounded on a literature review of models of liberal, republican and deliberative democracy and their subsequent models of public sphere, it discusses the structural conditions for the democratic formation of public opinion and political will, and thus the conditions for the democratic legitimacy of administrative and legislative acts of the political system. The second part seeks to delineate a more precise description of the abstract mediatic public sphere derived from the concepts of networks of multiple and partial public spheres, the principles of open access and effective participation of citizens in public life and the distinction between normative and strategic communication as established by Habermas. In conclusion, is argued that media systems organized on the basis of plural media types, characterized by the coexistence of commercial media systems, public service media, community and alternative media in different sectors, is the basis for developing a mediatic public sphere, self limiting and sufficiently comprehensive to meet the heavy communicative demands of democratic regimes and, more particularly, of deliberative democracy.

[pt] A partir de um estudo comparado de Brasil e Chile, expoentes da chamada divisão Atlântico vs. Pacífico, buscamos entender os fatores que influenciaram na elaboração e promoção de diferentes projetos regionais entre 2006 e 2014. Lançando mão de instrumentos metodológicos como a Análise de Conteúdo (AC) e a Análise Documental (AD), realizamos uma análise pormenorizada da relevância das seguintes variáveis: (a) ideologia política; (b) modelos de democracia; (c) modelos de desenvolvimento e (d) eixos geoestratégicos. Concluímos que o impacto da ideologia política sobre a elaboração e promoção de estratégias de regionalismo foi menos relevante que as demais condicionantes. Em um cenário de oportunidades e restrições impostas pelas relações estratégicas com os EUA e China, os modelos de democracia e, especialmente, os modelos de desenvolvimento foram as condicionantes mais expressivas nas políticas externas para o regionalismo empreendidas por Brasil e Chile entre 2006 e 2014. Portanto, o regionalismo latino-americano é melhor definido como determinado por eixos de regionalismo com singularidades que vão além de uma lógica fundamentada na dicotomia esquerda e direita. / [en] Based on a comparative study of Brazil and Chile, exponents of the so-called Atlantic vs. Pacific, we seek to understand the factors that influenced the elaboration and promotion of different regional projects between 2006 and 2014. Using methodological instruments such as Content Analysis (CA) and Document Analysis (AD), we carried out a detailed analysis of the relevance of following variables: (a) political ideology; (b) models of democracy; (c) models of development and (d) geostrategic axes. We conclude that the impact of political ideology on the elaboration and promotion of regionalism strategies was less relevant than the other constraints. In a scenario of opportunities and restrictions imposed by strategic relations with the USA and China, the models of democracy and, especially, the models of development were the most expressive conditions in the external policies for regionalism undertaken by Brazil and Chile between 2006 and 2014. Therefore, Latin American regionalism is best defined as determined by axes of regionalism with singularities that go beyond a logic based on the left and right dichotomy. / [es] A partir de un estudio comparativo de Brasil y Chile, exponentes del llamado Atlántico vs. Pacífico, buscamos comprender los factores que influyeron en la elaboración y promoción de diferentes proyectos regionales entre 2006 y 2014. Utilizando instrumentos metodológicos como el Análisis de Contenido (CA) y el Análisis Documental (AD), realizamos un análisis detallado de la relevancia de las siguientes variables: (a) ideología política; (b) modelos de democracia; (c) modelos de desarrollo y (d) ejes geoestratégicos. Concluimos que el impacto de la ideología política en la elaboración y promoción de estrategias de regionalismo fue menos relevante que las otras limitaciones. En un escenario de oportunidades y restricciones impuestas por las relaciones estratégicas con Estados Unidos y China, los modelos de democracia y, especialmente, los modelos de desarrollo fueron las condiciones más expresivas en las políticas externas para el regionalismo emprendidas por Brasil y Chile entre 2006 y 2014. Por tanto, el regionalismo latinoamericano se define mejor como determinado por ejes de regionalismo con singularidades que van más allá de una lógica basada en la dicotomía izquierda y derecha.