Embedded journalism and sovereignty at the NATO summit

In our country, national sovereignty is often discussed through the lenses of foreign policy, border security, or the defense industry. However, sovereignty is also about who sets the rules for the public sphere within national borders.

And freedom of the press is an inseparable part of this public sphere. The accreditation debates occurring ahead of the 36th NATO summit, which will be held in Turkey's capital, Ankara, between July 7-8, 2026—that is, the criteria by which journalists working in Turkey can cover an international summit in their own country and who holds the responsibility for this decision—are therefore significant.

Normatively, the press is considered the fourth estate because it acts as a witness and watchdog on behalf of society for the state, politics, and international power centers. This function becomes even more critical at international meetings like NATO, where military and political decisions are made.

Because the decisions taken will affect not only the foreign policies of member states but also wars, defense spending, armament, and the lives of millions of people. It is expected that decision-making processes with such major consequences for the world should be open to journalistic scrutiny across a wide spectrum. Because journalists are witnesses who monitor and question authorities on behalf of the public. For this reason, which journalists can follow a summit in a country, who they can ask questions to, what information they can access, and under what conditions they can work are political indicators that reveal that country's approach to governance and the boundaries of its public sphere. In this context, we cannot view the accreditation debates occurring before the NATO Summit in Ankara as merely the rejection of a few journalists' or media organizations' applications. 

If we recall, the 2004 NATO Summit held in Istanbul was also conducted under extraordinary security measures. The city was practically divided by security cordons, transportation was restricted, and large-scale protests were organized. Journalists worked under intense security procedures. However, in terms of journalism, the focus of public debate was not on accreditation processes, but on the nature of the summit and how it was reported.

Today, the picture is different.

Ahead of the summit in Ankara, numerous journalists' accreditation applications were rejected, and the reasons for these rejections were not disclosed to the public. NATO Spokesperson Allison Hart stated that for summits outside of Brussels, they rely on the host country's assessments regarding the accreditation of local journalists and that they are in contact with Turkish authorities regarding the accreditation process for the Ankara Summit. Conversely, the Directorate of Communications has not made a public statement regarding the rejection decisions or the decision-making process for accreditation. Therefore, it is unclear whether the decision regarding accreditation responsibility was national, NATO-led, or joint.

In this context, the criteria by which Turkish journalists who will work at an international summit held in Turkey are accredited, which institutions make the decision, and what legal oversight this process is subject to are legitimate questions. Here, Carl Schmitt's phrase “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception” comes to mind. Who is deciding on this exception at an international summit held in Turkey? If the decision was made by national authorities, the legal and administrative responsibility for this must be clearly assumed. If the decision was made by an international mechanism, it should first be explained why it was taken, then which legal rules that mechanism operates under, and what rights journalists possess.

Securitization and the Transformation of Journalism

In fact, one needs to look at the last 20 years to understand the paradigm shift regarding security. In the international relations literature, this transformation is explained by the “securitization” theory developed by Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver. That is, when an issue is defined as a security matter, extraordinary measures begin to replace normal legal and administrative processes. This approach, initially developed for military threats, has expanded over time from border management to digital communication, and from mass protests to media activities. After 9/11, international summits became one of the most visible venues for this security logic. Therefore, the circulation of information at NATO summits is also managed with this understanding. Journalists are increasingly moving away from being independent observers working outside this security architecture; their range of movement, access, and working methods take place within pre-defined security limitations.

From Witness to Authorized Observer

This transformation changes the nature of journalism. Journalists first undergo a security clearance. Their identities are verified. The areas they can be in are determined. Where they can film is described. Which corridors they will use is planned in advance. The resulting journalistic practice differs from public witnessing in the classical sense.

When we recall the analyses regarding the surveillance society, we see a design of power here where behaviors are also pre-regulated. The journalist turns into an authorized observer who moves only to the extent permitted by the security architecture. This situation also brings to mind the concept of embedded journalism, which was debated during the Iraq War. At that time, journalists were placed within selected military units and provided access to the battlefield; however, this access was limited to the permitted scope and discourse. In this state, it is expected that journalism activities in Ankara will be carried out while embedded in NATO's security criteria.

On the other hand, with modern politics increasingly operating within a “society of the spectacle,” international summits have become media events managed on a global scale. The walking and jogging routes of Atlantic leaders that are attempted to be staged, the city photos they will be exposed to along the way, joint press statements, and planned visuals will be crafted with a sense of spectacle and ostentation, and an attempt will be made to make them part of the production of political legitimacy. In this state, the summit will take place within a controlled and staged version of the media. Perhaps they think they will produce symbolic power this way, but they are mistaken.