Everyone viewed Erdoğan differently: Confusion or a new tactic?

Yaşar Aydın

President Erdoğan's plane conversations are always much talked about. It is no longer even a secret that the Communications Directorate provides journalists on the plane with questions in advance and that the answers and headlines to be highlighted are also determined together. To test whether this assessment is correct, it would suffice to look at the next day's newspaper headlines.

A similar scene was encountered on President Erdoğan's return from Turkmenistan, where he had gone to attend the International Peace and Security Forum. Reporters from familiar media outlets asked Erdoğan questions about the domestic and international agenda. Erdoğan responded. These responses were featured on the front pages of pro-government media outlets the following day.

So far, everything is normal. However, there are some peculiarities beyond this point. Firstly, not all newspapers featured these statements on their front pages; some only gave them small coverage. Secondly, each newspaper highlighted a different aspect of the speech.

For readers who did not have the opportunity to read all the newspapers, here are the headlines:

•Akşam: Warning to Russia over the Black Sea (Front page)

•Hürriyet: They have millions, how do they get involved in betting

•Milliyet: The pitfalls of the agreement will be broken

•Sabah: We will fight for clean football

•Türkgün: The Black Sea is not a place for reckoning (Front page)

•Türkiye: The constitution will be this term

•Akit: It would be beneficial to comply with the agreement in Syria (Front page)

•Yeni Şafak: The game of those setting traps in Syria will be ruined (Front page)

As seen above, there are three or four different topics presented in Erdoğan's words. If the headline to be highlighted was not discussed in advance with the media organisations by the Presidency of Communications, that is a separate issue. However, I think this is the least likely possibility.

So, two options remain. The first is that the Communications Directorate, as a new tactic, suggested different headlines to the newspapers, taking into account the readership of the media organisations. The other possibility is that the media organisations, just this once, ignored the Communications Directorate and did their own thing. Let's put this option aside and try to read what is happening on the government side through the media.

PLEASING EVERYONE

The picture that emerges is too meaningful to be explained by simple editorial confusion. The fact that words from the same plane conversation have been divided into such different headlines in the media universe close to the government shows that a single-centred communication line is no longer as functional as it used to be. More accurately, the centre still exists; however, its capacity to produce a single voice has weakened or become undesirable.

The ruling bloc has long been forced to strike a balance not only with the opposition but also among different factions within its own ranks. It is becoming increasingly difficult to produce a common and clear political framework on issues such as foreign policy, constitutional debates, the Kurdish question, Syria, Russia, the design of the media (the Habertürk case) and even football. Every step taken, whether deliberately or unintentionally, results in stepping on the toes of someone else within the ruling cliques.

This fragmented structure also makes it risky for the Presidency of Communications to continue with its classic ‘single headline, single emphasis’ model. This is because every headline that is highlighted has the potential to trigger objections or discomfort from another power component.

Therefore, the new approach that has come into play can be interpreted as a kind of ‘flirtatious’ communication strategy. Those with nationalist sensibilities see the Black Sea and Russia headline; those on the security line see the emphasis on Syria; those investing in reform and system discussions see the constitutional message; and those seeking social legitimacy through sport encounter headlines promoting the ‘clean football’ discourse.

This picture points to an effort to manage deepening discord rather than strong political coordination. Plurality is preferred over clarity, and ambiguity over openness. Everyone hears Erdoğan's words, but everyone sees a different Erdoğan. Precisely for this reason, the fragmentation in the headlines should not be read as a weakness but as the result of a conscious choice to conceal the current internal tensions within the ruling party.

The fundamental problem facing the ruling party today is not which headline is correct but which one will create less of a crisis. It seems that the answer to this question is no longer found in a single headline, but in the juxtaposition of many headlines.

DIG DEEPER AND YOU'LL FIND “POST-ERDOĞAN STRUGGLE”

The attempt to remain in power without the consent of the people is poisoning everyone, every institution and the country. This poison is injected into the most delicate veins of society through internal power struggles. This dirty fight, where no rules or values exist, is rotting the entire structure.

Clearly, the sole reason for this fight is not the sharing of the profits that have emerged today. It is also an attempt to seize control of the country's future, referred to as the ‘post-Erdoğan era.’ Given this situation, the fight is becoming much more ruthless and fierce.

The regime has now become a structure where these power centres come together solely on the basis of ‘staying in power.’ Therefore, getting rid of them is only possible by getting rid of the regime. Getting rid of the regime, in turn, will require standing together, organising, and fighting.

Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Erdoğan'ı herkes farklı gördü: Kafalar mı karışık yeni bir taktik mi?, published in BirGün newspaper on December 15, 2025.