http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/hellen ... _paper.pdf
I recommend the forum members and followers to read 24 pages of above pdf and decide what was the role of the Greece Mama over Cyprus problem.
some how we are only talking Turkey's connections over Cyprus and we are always creating lots of scenario about Mama Turkey..... have read and see....
here at below only conclusion part of it.... better to read all of it.
Conclusions
The results of the Content Analysis combined with the historical and sociocultural background lead to the following insights in the press coverage of that period in Cyprus:
In spite of the independence of Cyprus in 1960 the domestic political situation grew more acute until 1974. Many Greek Cypriots were still attracted by the dream of Enosis. The radical nationalists regarded Makarios, who signed the independence treaty of Cyprus, as a traitor; however the majority of the Greek Cypriots supported his policy.20 The analysis of the newspapers clearly demonstrates that this division into supporters and opposers found its manifestation in the press also, especially after Makarios demanded the withdrawal of the Greek Officers from Cyprus in his letter on 02.07.1974.
On the brink of the coup not only the radical right-wing newspapers (Ethniki, Mesimvrini, Patris) opposed to Makarios and his politics, but also the less radical newspapers, like Machi, 21 showed a negative attitude. Simultaneously left-wing and independent newspapers like Charavgi and Phileleftheros defined their position as on Makarios' side.This division of the press cannot always be directly observed in its coverage. Both sides (supporters as well as opposers) used different ways of blending information and opinion. The editorial staff of Charavgi and Phileleftheros favoured an explicit one-sided coverage; they made no secret of their political orientation. Charavgi applied for this purpose often formal opinion-stressed articles, like commentary or leading articles while Phileleftheros issued much political, one-sided documentation. On the contrary the editorial staff of Machi mostly implicitly supported the opponents of the Republic of Cyprus. This implicit support was achieved by systematically highlighting isolated aspects of incidents, while omitting any background information that could lead to undesirable interpretations. Typical for the coverage of Machi were many brief and thematically narrowed down articles.
After Makarios was overthrown and replaced by Nicos Sampson 15.07.1974 the newspapers stopped publishing at first, due to the censorship. Only the national broadcast RIK, which was also under the control of the Greek Junta and EOKA B, officially stayed on air. Through their radio program the rebels announced on 15.07.1974 between 08:00 and 09:00 their victory: "The national guard intervened in order to solve the problematical situation. [...]. Makarios is dead". In a last act Makarios, who had managed to escape, denied his death through a private radio transmitter in Pafos, before fleeing abroad. From this point on the illegal government of Nicos Sampson controlled the media. The press remained object to censorship. Due to these circumstances, a Content Analysis of the press coverage of that period wouldn’t have been particularly meaningful. Hence we restricted ourselves to a mere qualitative examination of the few newspaper editions available.
Due to censorship the editorial staff of not right-wing newspapers refused to continue publishing any newspapers at all. On 19.07.1974 and 20.07.1974 only Agon, Ethniki and Machi appeared in print. The few editions, which were available,22 illustrate the dramatic change of the situation in Cyprus after the coup. The newspapers were supporting the coup employing propagandistic instruments. Machi’s leading article on 19.07.1974 had the following title: "The Government of national salvation guides the people back to cultural unity. The corrupt old regime is overthrown and finished." Agon and Ethniki also praised the rebels. Ethniki wrote: "After the liberating intervention of the military, the tyrant had to flee. The relief of the people is effusive." The obtainable editions of Machi set an example of the changes in the coverage during the governance of Nicos Sampson. His supporters in the press openly deviated from the truth, deliberately omitted information and made up events. For example on 20.07.197 4 Machi wrote: "The ambition of the new government. Peaceful solution for the Cyprus problem.", or: "The military youth placed Sampson in the place of the president of Cyprus. Waldheim23 greeted Makarios because he approves with him." It is noticeable that, after Sampson took over the leadership, he didn’t openly bring forward the topic of Enosis. On the contrary he emphasized that the status quo of the island would remain unchanged24 and his aim was only to whisk away Makarios, the tyrant.
Another aspect of deliberate disinformation concerned the Turkish reactions on the coup. The preparations of the invasion were not mentioned in the coverage of the newspapers. The journey of the Turkish Prime Minister Boulent Etzevit to Britain, which aimed to convince the British to allow Turkey a military basis on the island, was not mentioned. Also the Turkish conditions for a prevention of an imminent invasion were kept secret. One of these conditions was the resignation of Sampson (Stern 1978: 151). On 20.07.1974, the day the Turkish military was deployed for the invasion; Machi once more assured its readership: "It is impossible for Turkey to intervene in Cyprus. Turkey’s resources are limited." Sampson resigned three days later, on 23.07.1974.
After Sampson’s resignation, the censorship was officially abolished, but due to the exceptional circumstances that resulted from the ongoing Turkish invasion, the first free newspapers did not regularly appear in print until after the invasion came to a halt on 01.08.1974. Only Phileleftheros wrote on 05.08.1974 (p.1) that the owners of the newspapers made an agreement with the provisional president Kliridis to obtain a consulting role as far as it concerned the political coverage of the newspapers. However Content Analysis of the editions of that period provided no indications for any active censorship of the political content in the newspapers.
The examination of the editions of the newspapers directly after the coup (02.07 -11.07.1974) did not reveal the same schemata as the periods before. Had the Cypriot press been divided into two parties, it now showed three political directions. Charavgi remained faithful to the policy of its party, though more explicit through the publication of more opinion-stressed articles. The editorial staff of Charavgi characterized the coup as the obvious cause of the Turkish invasion and pled for the return of President Makarios. In its edition of 01.08.1974 (p.4) Charavgi published the article: "Chronic of the tragedy of Cyprus“, which aimed to fill all the gaps in the information which had been caused by the censorship. Only the names of the people who were responsible for the tragedy were primarily omitted. The message that Charavgi sent to its public was “postponed is not abandoned”. Under the circumstances Charavgi tried to avoid provoking a new civil war with its coverage. Instead of that Charavgi supported the provisional government of Kliridis and the unity of Cyprus.
Phileleftheros also attempted not to add fuel to the flames during the period of the invasion. The difference however was that Phileleftheros did not mention the coup as often as Charavgi in its coverage. Consequently Phileleftheros avoid showing any connection between the coup and the invasion. Typical for hesitant attitude of Phileleftheros was also the obviously reduced support for Makarios. The editors of Phileleftheros awaited the stabilization of the domestic affairs.
Machi had been an open propaganda instrument during the governance of Samson. After the Invasion it reverted to its old implicit method of propaganda. In the coverage of Machi coup and invasion remained disconnected, other embarrassing Situations of the period 15.7.1974 - 23.07.1974, were omitted. It was also impossible for Machi to admit the mistakes of its owner during the coup. Sampson did never notify his failure publicly. The continuation in the editing policy of Machi and the continued refusal to accept the overthrown President as the legal president proved that the nationalists, even after their coup failed, were not willing to admit the failure and injustice of their own actions.
by denizaksulu » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:30 pm 
