DAILY NEWSPAPER REPORTING OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE:
COULD THEY ALL BE WRONG?
Armenian News Network / Groong
April 23, 2008
By Katia M. Peltekian
In a world where there were no radios, televisions or the internet,
the only source of information for events occurring around the world
was the newspaper. At the time, the news did not travel fast, but it
did eventually reach the four corners of the world.
Throughout the world, papers filled their pages with news from the
Ottoman Empire. Towards the end of the 19th century, when European
countries as well as the United States were on friendly terms with
Turkey, thousands of reports about the on-going massacres and
mistreatment of the Armenians were printed on the pages of such well-
known newspapers in the English language as The Times (of London),
The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The
Toronto Star, The Montreal Gazette, etc. These newspapers included
reports by correspondents, travelers, and consuls or ambassadors of
different countries based in the different regions of the Ottoman
Empire. But the more detailed reports came from the missionaries who
witnessed the plight of the Armenians and tried to help the orphans
and the survivors as best they could.
It is to be noted that the Western press covered the Hamidian
massacres much more extensively than the massacres of World War One
period since many of the western countries broke diplomatic relations
with Turkey when the Great War broke out. Not only diplomats left the
Empire but for safety reasons their citizens left also. On the other
hand, as a neutral country, the USA kept its ambassador, consuls and
missionaries in Turkey for the first three years of the War. As the
number and frequency of the reports in the British press dropped, for
example, those in the American press were on the rise until America
joined the War on the side of the Allies in April 1917.
THE SOURCES
A careful examination of various newspapers in the English language
will show that the sources for information originated from what could
be labeled as the best kind of evidence: eyewitnesses as well as
victims themselves. Most of the news originated from the war zone and
its vicinity where refugees were welcomed; the reports included the
eyewitness accounts of missionaries, consuls, survivors and refugees.
Other sources emerged from world capitals such as London, Paris,
Berlin, Washington and, more importantly, from Constantinople where
correspondents and diplomatic missions of neutral or allied countries
resided.
Thus most of the information about the ongoing massacres in the
different regions of the Ottoman Empire came from diplomatic
missions, religious missions, physicians, teachers and travelers.
These sources were often referred to as sources of `unquestioned
veracity, integrity and authority'; in many instances, the reports
came from an eyewitness whose `reliability cannot be questioned', or
from `well-known Americans who are cognizant of the actual situation
in Turkey' who `produce absolutely trustworthy evidence and
authenticated data.'
The United States maintained a neutral position during the first
three years of the Great War. It had an ambassador residing in
Constantinople, and consuls and vice-consuls well-spread around the
Ottoman Empire. In addition, the American missionaries were placed
throughout the area where they could observe events or record
eyewitness testimonies directly from survivors and victims. Since the
missionaries were in daily contact with the people, they were able to
provide credible testimony on the treatment of the Armenians during
the deportations and about the mass murders.
The British and the Commonwealth countries, on the other hand,
depended on the British ex-residents of Turkey who left their homes
as the war broke out. Also correspondents traveling with the Russian
army on the Caucasus front reported the scenes of atrocities as the
Russians liberated the Armenian cities of Erzurum, Bitlis and Trebizond.
In many instances the British, Canadian and the American newspapers
relied also on reports written by the foreign press or were released
by foreign missionaries and diplomats. For example, the Italian
consul of Trebizond Signor Giacomo Gorrini stated in a special cable
dispatch to a Canadian newspaper in August 1915 the following:
The decree, which was published on June 24, ordered the massacre of
Armenians, and forms the blackest page in Ottoman history ... The
result of the proclamation was carnage on a big and bloody scale ... I
saw thousands of innocent women and children placed on boats which
were capsized in the Black Sea. Thousands of young Armenian women
were forcibly converted to Mohammedism ... I shall never forget the
scenes of horror I witnessed from June 21 to July 23, when I left.'
Another source of information came from the Germans themselves,
Turkey's allies during the Great War. In October 1915, The Los
Angeles Times published a translated version of what a German
official had declared in German newspapers:
If Turkey considers necessary that the Armenian uprising and other
intrigues be suppressed with all means ... that does not constitute
massacres nor atrocities, but simply a measure of a justified and
necessary character ... `
COULD THEY ALL BE WRONG?
Armenian News Network / Groong
April 23, 2008
By Katia M. Peltekian
In a world where there were no radios, televisions or the internet,
the only source of information for events occurring around the world
was the newspaper. At the time, the news did not travel fast, but it
did eventually reach the four corners of the world.
Throughout the world, papers filled their pages with news from the
Ottoman Empire. Towards the end of the 19th century, when European
countries as well as the United States were on friendly terms with
Turkey, thousands of reports about the on-going massacres and
mistreatment of the Armenians were printed on the pages of such well-
known newspapers in the English language as The Times (of London),
The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The
Toronto Star, The Montreal Gazette, etc. These newspapers included
reports by correspondents, travelers, and consuls or ambassadors of
different countries based in the different regions of the Ottoman
Empire. But the more detailed reports came from the missionaries who
witnessed the plight of the Armenians and tried to help the orphans
and the survivors as best they could.
It is to be noted that the Western press covered the Hamidian
massacres much more extensively than the massacres of World War One
period since many of the western countries broke diplomatic relations
with Turkey when the Great War broke out. Not only diplomats left the
Empire but for safety reasons their citizens left also. On the other
hand, as a neutral country, the USA kept its ambassador, consuls and
missionaries in Turkey for the first three years of the War. As the
number and frequency of the reports in the British press dropped, for
example, those in the American press were on the rise until America
joined the War on the side of the Allies in April 1917.
THE SOURCES
A careful examination of various newspapers in the English language
will show that the sources for information originated from what could
be labeled as the best kind of evidence: eyewitnesses as well as
victims themselves. Most of the news originated from the war zone and
its vicinity where refugees were welcomed; the reports included the
eyewitness accounts of missionaries, consuls, survivors and refugees.
Other sources emerged from world capitals such as London, Paris,
Berlin, Washington and, more importantly, from Constantinople where
correspondents and diplomatic missions of neutral or allied countries
resided.
Thus most of the information about the ongoing massacres in the
different regions of the Ottoman Empire came from diplomatic
missions, religious missions, physicians, teachers and travelers.
These sources were often referred to as sources of `unquestioned
veracity, integrity and authority'; in many instances, the reports
came from an eyewitness whose `reliability cannot be questioned', or
from `well-known Americans who are cognizant of the actual situation
in Turkey' who `produce absolutely trustworthy evidence and
authenticated data.'
The United States maintained a neutral position during the first
three years of the Great War. It had an ambassador residing in
Constantinople, and consuls and vice-consuls well-spread around the
Ottoman Empire. In addition, the American missionaries were placed
throughout the area where they could observe events or record
eyewitness testimonies directly from survivors and victims. Since the
missionaries were in daily contact with the people, they were able to
provide credible testimony on the treatment of the Armenians during
the deportations and about the mass murders.
The British and the Commonwealth countries, on the other hand,
depended on the British ex-residents of Turkey who left their homes
as the war broke out. Also correspondents traveling with the Russian
army on the Caucasus front reported the scenes of atrocities as the
Russians liberated the Armenian cities of Erzurum, Bitlis and Trebizond.
In many instances the British, Canadian and the American newspapers
relied also on reports written by the foreign press or were released
by foreign missionaries and diplomats. For example, the Italian
consul of Trebizond Signor Giacomo Gorrini stated in a special cable
dispatch to a Canadian newspaper in August 1915 the following:
The decree, which was published on June 24, ordered the massacre of
Armenians, and forms the blackest page in Ottoman history ... The
result of the proclamation was carnage on a big and bloody scale ... I
saw thousands of innocent women and children placed on boats which
were capsized in the Black Sea. Thousands of young Armenian women
were forcibly converted to Mohammedism ... I shall never forget the
scenes of horror I witnessed from June 21 to July 23, when I left.'
Another source of information came from the Germans themselves,
Turkey's allies during the Great War. In October 1915, The Los
Angeles Times published a translated version of what a German
official had declared in German newspapers:
If Turkey considers necessary that the Armenian uprising and other
intrigues be suppressed with all means ... that does not constitute
massacres nor atrocities, but simply a measure of a justified and
necessary character ... `
Comment