Media hunters pursue their prey daily, cloaking their fiction in the guise of nonfiction. Stay vigilant
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
very reader develops a distinct reading habit over time, shaped by work, mood, economic conditions or other factors. It takes root within the framework of one’s character and environment. Some dedicate themselves entirely to fiction, while others become staunch devotees of nonfiction. They divide into opposing camps, belittling and even openly dismissing one another. A very rigid polarization emerges here; it narrows the way of thinking and forces people to choose between “intellect” and “emotion” – a false dichotomy that runs counter to what modern individuals need for a fulfilling and balanced life.
My words are, of course, directed at those in search of fulfillment and balance in life. To those who may feel otherwise, I ask that they do not take offense, but it is undeniable that modern individuals unravel if they lack the means to nurture both their intellect and emotions simultaneously. When one is prioritized over the other, identity crises, feelings of emptiness, brain fog and numerous other struggles arise, making life feel either stagnant or stumbling. In short, it cannot be about choosing one over the other.
The understanding that we should not make such a choice is inherently tied to how we view the world, and how we perceive the world is undoubtedly shaped by how we approach reading. The way we engage with books mirrors how we engage with life, unconsciously or consciously shaping our existence. Given this, reading habits should not be dismissed lightly; they deserve our full attention. And if we find them flawed, they must be reevaluated. The importance of “simultaneous reading” (a term I humbly propose) – of engaging with both fiction and nonfiction – should, therefore, not be overlooked.
Basically, simultaneous reading is when a reader finds joy in both a Umberto Eco satire and a quantum physics postdoctoral thesis, or in a Malcolm Guite poem and an art history 101 book, all at once. Its beauty lies in its symmetry: While nonfiction satisfies our thirst for knowledge and keeps us contemporary, fiction fuels the imagination and reassures us that we are not alone in the world.
Among all its benefits, however, the greatest gift of simultaneous reading is the ability to distinguish between reality and imagination from the outset. That means when you pick up a work of fiction, you know you are entering a world of fiction; when you choose nonfiction, you expect facts and evidence. In other words, before either buying a book, glancing at a magazine article or skimming through a news piece, you instinctively and effortlessly categorize what you are about to read. It’s almost as if you silently tell yourself, “Now I am entering a fictional or nonfictional narrative,” and proceed accordingly. It is such an awareness that helps minimize the risks of manipulation and detachment from reality – or, conversely, allows you to fully savor the joy of escaping it.
Fiction in disguise
Nowhere is this vital awareness more urgently needed than in the media. Because no other industry in the world so powerfully and pervasively disguises fiction as nonfiction, making manipulation widespread.
The media is as close to the truth as it is distant from it. If a reader approaches media content without fully understanding what they are engaging with, they are in grave danger. No longer a reader but a product, they are swept up by manipulation from the very first moment – essentially transformed into an antelope fatally bitten by a leopard, beyond rescue.
Expanding on the antelope and leopard analogy, the media becomes the battleground of hunters and prey. The hunter – the creator of manipulative content – is the one who presents fiction as truth, while the prey – the consumer who fails to see the deception – accepts fiction as reality. The media itself is the hunting ground where this chase unfolds.
Let’s ground the hunter-prey analogy with concrete, current examples to keep it from drifting into abstraction. I’ll take Türkiye as our focus to ensure no shortage of material. I hope the fellows mentioned in the examples won’t take offense – this isn’t about personal grievances but rather opening a discussion on a global issue that concerns all of us as readers. After all, as long as the world turns, neither the hunter nor the prey will disappear.
At the end of last November, I stumbled upon an article in TIME that immediately caught my attention, thanks to its provocative headline appearing on my Google feed. Categorized under “Ideas,” which implies that the magazine acknowledges the author’s responsibility while still shouldering some of the burden, the headline read: “Erdoğan Is Plotting His Next Power Grab.”
TIME is, without a doubt, one of the most influential political publications in the world. Its reputation is so widespread that even the most apolitical individuals globally tend to take note of it. Its iconic covers capture the attention of nearly everyone. So, when TIME publishes an article, the reader – trusting in its brand – spends a few minutes engaging with it, often without questioning the content.
The said piece was written by Ian Bremmer, a foreign affairs columnist and editor-at-large at TIME. For those interested in global politics, Türkiye is an endless source of material. As late President Süleyman Demirel once wisely stated, “24 hours is a very long time in politics,” but for Turkish politics, it feels even longer. Writing about Turkish politics could easily become a hobby – it’s that engrossing. I can only imagine the veteran analyst Bremmer enthusiastically pitching the idea to the editorial board, or following whatever their usual process might be, with a simple, “Let’s write an Erdoğan article.” But, instead of a well-structured exploration, it seems Bremmer assumed the role of a “hunter.”
In just eight brief paragraphs, Bremmer quickly touches on a wide array of topics in Turkish politics ranging from earthquakes and inflation to constitutional changes and developments with the PKK and somehow links them all back to his argument highlighted in the catchy title. His treatment of these issues is superficial at best, and you can’t help but wonder, “What are we exactly criticizing here?” Normally, a reasonable piece of writing focuses on a specific topic, offering critiques and posing questions to a president, effectively putting them under the spotlight. However, when unrelated issues are thrown together into one basket, it becomes laughable. The piece jumbles together unrelated topics, and before long, you feel as though you’ve become the prey if you continue reading without questioning the logic.
Another “hunter” article comes from the Jerusalem Post, not a fictional publication but rather a news site that falls under the category of nonfiction. If you’re a regular reader of the Jerusalem Post, you should be closely following politics, particularly in Israel and the Middle East, along with broader global affairs. A reader who decided to check its opinion section after 5:04 p.m. on Feb. 15 would have come across this article: “How Erdogan’s Ottoman energy ambitions threaten Israel and the West.” It belongs to Ruth Wasserman Lande, a former member of the Knesset and advisor to the late Israeli President Shimon Peres.
Opinion pieces, by nature, require you to offer commentary and direction on a nonfiction topic, shifting the discussion from the publisher’s perspective to the author’s personal views. However, if the article is indeed fiction, shouldn’t it be clearly stated as such? Some may argue that they have the right to interpret Turkish foreign policy through a fictional lens, but only under one condition: It must be acknowledged as fiction. Otherwise, as with Lande’s op-ed, it becomes absurd toward the subject matter. I’ll share just the first sentence of the article, and let that stand: “Syria is no longer Syria but rather an integral part of the emerging Ottoman Empire.” Ottomans? Hilarious! Period.
This time, we’re looking at The Independent. The headline reads: “Turkey detains 282 suspects in a dayslong operation against Kurdish insurgents.” Anyone familiar with the topic will recognize that this refers to Türkiye’s ongoing, 40-year fight against the PKK. Specifically, the news covers the detention of 282 suspects believed to have links to what Türkiye, the U.S. and the EU designate as a terrorist group. However, here’s how the “hunter” connects the dots: “Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government has widened a crackdown on the opposition in recent months, arresting journalists and politicians among others.”
“Crackdown on the opposition”? Oh, come on, you hunter. It’s just a classic anti-terror detention. Sure, you could spin it into a “crackdown,” but that would be about as logical as tracing it back to the Big Bang. I mean, in the end, the world was created, humanity evolved, Türkiye came into being, the media took shape, the PKK popped up – you see? It’s all connected. Clearly, the handiwork of a seasoned hunter.
We could pile up examples until they reach the moon, but let’s do everyone a favor and get back to the point.
Healthy skepticism
Naturally, the hunters in the media continue to approach their prey with ever more subtlety. Of course, it’s inevitable that we encounter these same characters in all sectors of written content production – after all, according to the laws of nature, both prey and predators are embedded in the fabric of life. What truly matters here, however, is ensuring that we, the readers, don’t become the prey. To this end, the “simultaneous reading” approach offers, at least to some extent, a life-saving quality. The key is to open our eyes and approach the production of content with a healthy dose of skepticism. After all, no one wants to be the prey – no one wants to be manipulated and distanced from reality, deceived in the process.
As the anniversary of his passing draws near, I’d like to offer a quote from Umberto Eco, the great Italian writer. In one of his interviews, Eco spoke about the American bestseller author and mystery chaser, Dan Brown: “Dan Brown and I probably read the same books. But he believed in some of them.”
There you have it – the ultimate hunter’s trick. Convince yourself, convince the audience, and before you know it, reality becomes just another well-crafted plot twist.
Original article: dailysabah
