In the previous days, President Erdoğan used the “know your place” expression towards the New York Times. As in other examples, this expression was also attributed to Erdoğan's intolerance; it constituted the indication of “how angry” he is. However, maybe the reality was the contrary; but nobody paid attention to that.

However, let's pay attention; a couple days before Erdoğan's reaction, on May 22nd, an article entitled “Dark Clouds over Turkey” has been published in the New York Times. The signature on the article belonged to the newspaper's Editorial Department. In other words, the point in question was neither an individual comment nor an opinion that could be attributed to the writer only; the article was the indicator of the newspaper's publishing policy.

You can find the original version of the article by searching “Dark Clouds over Turkey” on Google. If we are to summarize it shortly; the New York Times is accusing Erdoğan of oppressing the antagonist and increasing the tension only two weeks before the election. The same newspaper also protects Hürriyet, who threatened Erdoğan over the death sentence given to Morsi and thus received Erdoğan's reaction, with Today's Zaman reference and almost criminalizes Erdoğan's reaction towards Hürriyet by saying “a warped and absurd accusation, it's a slap on the idea that Turkey still has democracy”. The New York Times continues and gives details most of us don't even know; “AKP supporter lawyer Rahmi Kurt requested prosecutors to start an investigation against the Hürriyet executives, whom he accused of encouraging the public to an armed demonstration against the government, and arrest them.”

In the article, while stating that Zaman is being oppressed, it's also being mentioned that there is a threat to seize the wealth of Hürriyet and Zaman. While also stating that the labor unions are worried, the New York Times calls on the U.S. and NATO to stop Erdoğan.

When we look at the language used in the article; you might think that you are face to face with criticism slurry, which ranges from the Gezi supporters to the Gülen Organization, from Demirtaş supporters to white Turks and to which Erdoğan-AK Party enemies add a little bit of hatred arguments by joining forces. Because, between the accusations there is; the freedom of press, labor rights, rumors about the election blemishes and the claim of Erdoğan's oppression on the antagonists…

Then, what's the reason behind the New York Times, who didn't even use such an assailant language against sanguinary dictators, who killed hundreds of thousands of citizens, half totalitarian regimes and coupist regimes that opens fire against their citizens, to take such a hostile stance against Turkey, who is being administered by democracy even though it's deficiencies can be argued, and to a leader, who is being elected by the public? If this attitude is not hostile, then what's the meaning of the “hostile” word?

Besides, this is not the first rebuke attraction of the New York Times. Since the Gezi process, they have been doing the same. They are attacking –this is the right word, Turkey and its leader, with an unaccredited anger and subjective language that can be seen in their “ordered” articles. In every critical Turkey agenda, the New York Times appears from somewhere.

I'm sure that they are being informed by the government or AK Party circles about the happenings in Turkey; however, I'm sure that they don't care much about that information.

Fine, but this is what I cannot understand; forget about the relatively recent ones like “Inglorious”, “441 hands were raised for Chaos”. How come the New York Times vouches for Hürriyet, whose past is full of supports towards coups, establishing governments and overthrowing them, and tells Erdoğan “you got it wrong”?

Besides, how come they talk about the labor unions' worries in Turkey, while sitting in the middle of capitalism? While Turkey's policies in the last 13 years are far from being conservative-right but rather is a model close to social democracy… Doesn't the New York Times know that; everyone in Turkey has equal rights and has healthcare that is easy to access and almost for free, that the institutions who apply positive discrimination towards relatively disadvantaged segments like poor people, housewives, disabled people, and elderly people were formed during the AK Party period, that Turkey grew by expanding the development share with mid-classes, and reducing inflation by increasing employment, that while the U.S. government is jammed over the possibility of issuing minimum healthcare policies for the poor people of the U.S., the uninsured Turkish people in the U.S. are even flying to Turkey to have their tooth filled?

I'm sure they do. Of course, I'm not going to explain the editorial choices of the 165-year old media organ for not knowing the job's principles. However, I can't regard the people, who are looking for traces of White House in the argument within this stubborn, target-seeking and spot-on aggressive, as conspiracy types. As a matter of fact, the instrument is the message.