This article focuses on the digital reproduction of hate speech. It investigates the normalization of affective nationalistic discourses via user comments posted on digital news media websites. I analyze digital posts concerning the murder in Turkey of Hrant Dink, a well-known Turkish Armenian journalist, on the websites of the two most popular Turkish newspapers. This examination considers readers’ comments on the day of the murder, January 19, 2007, and the annual commemorations over the subsequent 6 years. Based on my findings, I argue that nationalistic rhetoric is normalized via six discourses of othering: militarization, identity, us versus them, blaming, rejection, and indifference. Furthermore, I demonstrate how users repurpose online comment sections to reproduce notions of inferential racism by producing affective nationalism vis-à-vis Armenian–Turkish relations.
ÅkerlundM. (2021). Influence without metrics: Analyzing the impact of far-right users in an online discussion forum. Social Media+ Society, 7(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211008831
2.
AlasuutariP. (1999). Introduction: Three phases of reception studies. In AlasuutariP. (Ed.), Rethinking the media audience: The new agenda (pp. 1–22). SAGE.
3.
AlkiviadouN. (2019). Hate speech on social media networks: Towards a regulatory framework?Information & Communications Technology Law, 28(1), 19–35.
4.
AndersonB. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso Books.
5.
AntonsichM.SkeyM. (2017). Affective nationalism: Issues of power, agency and method. Progress in Human Geography, 41(6), 843–845.
BlumL. (2019). I’m not a racist, but. . .Cornell University Press.
15.
boydd. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In PapacharissiZ. (Ed.), Networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). Routledge.
16.
BratichJ. (2005). Amassing the multitude: Revisiting early audience studies. Communication Theory, 15(3), 242–265.
17.
BratichJ. (2011). User-generated discontent: Convergence, polemology and dissent. Cultural Studies, 25(4–5), 621–640.
18.
BratichJ. (2013). From audiences to media subjectivities: Mutants in the interregnum. In ValdiviaA. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media studies (1st ed., pp. 1–30). Blackwell Publishing.
19.
BrennanT. (2004). The transmission of affect. Cornell University Press.
20.
BulutE.CanB. (2020). Media, affect, and authoritarian futures in “New Turkey”: Spectacular confessions on television in the post-coup era. Communication, Culture and Critique, 13(4), 403–421.
21.
BulutE.YörükE. (2017). Mediatized populisms| digital populism: Trolls and political polarization of Twitter in Turkey. International Journal of Communication, 11, 4093–4117.
22.
BurchE. (2001). Censoring hate speech in cyberspace: A new debate in New America. North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, 3, 175.
23.
CammaertsB. (2009). Radical pluralism and free speech in online public spaces the case of North Belgian extreme right discourses. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(6), 555–575.
ErjavecK.KovačičM. P. (2012). “You don’t understand, this is a new war!”: Analysis of hate speech in news web sites’ comments. Mass Communication and Society, 15(6), 899–920.
29.
FoucaultM. (2007). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (pp. 445–471). Duke University Press.
30.
GallowayA. R. (2012). Does the whatever speak? In NakamuraL.Chow-WhiteP. A. (Eds.), Race after the internet (pp. 111–128). Routledge.
31.
GibbsA. (2011). Affect theory and audience. In NightingaleV. (Ed.), The handbook of media audiences (pp. 251–267). Wiley-Blackwell.
Hurriyet. (2012, January19). On binler bes yil once bugun olduruldugu yerde [Thousands are on the spot today where he was killed five years ago]. http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/19722083.asp
JenkinsH.ItoM.boydd. (2015). Participatory culture in a networked era: A conversation on youth, learning, commerce, and politics. John Wiley & Sons.
53.
KaymasS. A. (2011). Media policy paradigm shift in Turkey: Rethinking neo-authoritarian media systems in the age of neo liberalism. Acta Universitatis Danubius Communicatio, 5(1), 40–69.
KellnerD. (2015). Media spectacle and the crisis of democracy: Terrorism, war, and election battles. Routledge.
57.
LivingstoneSonia. (1998). Audience research at the crossroads: The “implied audience” in media and cultural theory. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 1(2), 193–217.
58.
MassumiB. (2010). The future birth of the affective fact: The political ontology of threat. In GreggM.SeigworthG. J. (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 52–71). Duke University Press.
59.
MerrimanP.JonesR. (2017a). National bodies and affects: A reply to Antonsich and Skey. Progress in Human Geography, 41(6), 846–848.
60.
MerrimanP.JonesR. (2017b). Nations, materialities and affects. Progress in Human Geography, 41(5), 600–617.
61.
MorozovE. (2011). The net delusion: The dark side of Internet freedom. PublicAffairs.
62.
NakamuraL. (2008). Digitizing race: Visual cultures of the internet (Vol. 23). University of Minnesota Press.
63.
NikunenK.HokkaJ.NelimarkkaM. (2021). Affective practice of soldiering: How sharing images is used to spread extremist and racist ethos on Soldiers of Odin Facebook site. Television & New Media, 22(2), 166–185.
64.
OktenA. (2018). Social movement media and affective field. In AkserM.McCollumV. (Eds.), Alternative media in contemporary Turkey: Sustainability, activism, and resistance (pp. 123–136). Rowman & Littlefield.
65.
OktenA. (2019). The politics of digital platforms: Sour dictionary, activist subjectivities, and contemporary cultures of resistance [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Rutgers University.
66.
PanttiM.NelimarkkaM.NikunenK.TitleyG. (2019). The meanings of racism: Public discourses about racism in Finnish news media and online discussion forums. European Journal of Communication, 34(5), 503–519.
67.
PapacharissiZ. (2014). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
68.
ProteviJ. (2009). Political affect: Connecting the social and the somatic. University of Minnesota Press.
69.
RadwayJ. (1984). Reading the romance: Women, patriarchy, and popular culture. University of North Carolina Press.
70.
RadwayJ. (2009). Reading the romance. In ThornhamS.BassettC.MarrisP. (Eds.), Media studies: A reader (pp. 28–39). New York University Press.
71.
RheingoldH. (2007). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. Basic books.
72.
SanliS. (2013). Boundary work in an era of transformation: Television, taste and distinction in Turkey. International Journal of Communication, 7, 23.
73.
SeiterE. (1992). Qualitative audience research. In AllenR. C.HallA. (Eds.), The television studies reader (pp. 461–477). Routledge.
74.
ShirkyC. (2010). Cognitive surplus: How technology makes consumers into collaborators. Penguin.
TataryanN. (2011). Armenians living in Turkey and the assassination of Hrant Dink: Loss, mourning and melancholia [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Sabanci University.
77.
TerranovaT. (2007). Futurepublic on information warfare, bio-racism and hegemony as noopolitics. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(3), 125–145.
ThompsonJ. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture: Critical social theory in the era of mass communication. Polity Press.
80.
ThriftN. J. (2008). Non-representational theory: Space, politics, affect. Routledge.
81.
TitleyG. (2014). No apologies for cross-posting: European trans-media space and the digital circuitries of racism. Crossings: Journal of Migration & Culture, 5(1), 41–55.
TitleyG.NikunenK.PanttiM. (2021). Shifting formations, formative infrastructures: Nationalisms and racisms in media circulation. Television & New Media, 22(2), 103–111.
84.
TsesisA. (2009). Dignity and speech: The regulation of hate speech in a democracy. Wake Forest Law Review, 44, 497–532.
85.
TuncA. (2013). Freedom of expression debates in Turkey: Acute problems and new hopes. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 9(2), 153–163.
86.
UlgenF. (2010). Reading Mustafa Kemal Atatürk on the Armenian Genocide of 1915. Patterns of Prejudice, 44(4), 369–391.
87.
Van DijckJ. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 31(1), 41–58.
88.
WarnerW.HirschbergJ. (2012). Detecting hate speech on the world wide web. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Language in Social Media, Association for Computational Linguistics, Montreal, Canada, pp. 19–26.
89.
WerbnerP. (2005). Islamophobia: Incitement to religious hatred–legislating for a new fear?Anthropology Today, 21(1), 5–9.
90.
YavuzM. H. (2011). Contours of scholarship on Armenian-Turkish relations. Middle East Critique, 20(3), 231–251.
91.
YesilB. (2016). Media in New Turkey: The origins of an authoritarian Neoliberal state. University of Illinois Press.
92.
YesilB.Kerem SözeriE.KhazraeeE. (2017). Turkey’s internet policy after the coup attempt: The emergence of a distributed network of online suppression and surveillance. Internet Policy Observatory, University of Pennsylvania.
