In early 2026, the discovery of Durdona Khakimova and Ergashalieva Sayyora—two Uzbek women murdered and disposed of in trash containers in Istanbul—sent a chilling ripple through social media. For many, it was a gruesome déjà vu of the 2009 Münevver Karabulut case. Yet, the relative silence of mainstream media regarding these migrant victims reveals a disturbing evolution of what I call the ‘Aesthetics of Impunity’: a stage where certain lives are rendered ‘ungrievable’ and systemic violence is dismissed as an isolated incident among ‘others’. This article argues that Türkiye’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention is not merely a legal backsliding; it is a process that, combined with the ‘aesthetics of impunity’ in the media, renders certain lives ‘disposable’.
When analyzing the relationship between media and politics, using the intersection of cultural studies and political economy is a critical step in understanding how power constructs gender roles. While cultural studies sometimes overlook economic structures, and political economists can focus too much on the economy alone, the truth lies in between. The media’s power to shape public opinion and gender roles is neither purely economic nor a random “butterfly effect ”independent of financial structures.
From the first moment an individual interacts with the media, they encounter the ideology of the hegemon and begin constructing their identity within this process. As cultural studies suggest, the audience is not “passive”; they decode messages based on their own life conditions. However, Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and Chomsky and Herman’s “Manufacturing Consent ” remind us that media content ultimately serves the hegemon. Every TV series, advertisement, and political program focuses on reproducing consent to strengthen power. In this context, building a free identity is only possible by questioning the “ready-made lunch” offered by the media. In the political climate of the last 24 years, questioning this ‘lunch’ has become synonymous with questioning the system itself.
Political Violence, Legitimacy, and the Role of Social Media
From the perspective of political violence, we see that the state seeks “ legitimacy ” through media apparatuses. This search for legitimacy is what distinguishes political violence from ordinary crime. In Türkiye, social media has filled the gap left by mainstream media, creating a space that functions as a “fourth power.” High-profile cases of violence against women often go viral on social media, which speeds up judicial processes. However, this points to a justice system that reacts to public pressure rather than a structural solution within the system itself..
Institutional Discourse: From Ministry Names to Political Language
According to Chomsky and Herman, manufacturing consent is the primary goal of the media (1988). When we apply these theories to Türkiye, “gender” appears as a key concept in creating shared meanings in people’s minds. Unfortunately, when we look at the political side of gender studies—including identity, biological sex, and sexual orientation—the picture is not very bright. While political participation for women and LGBTQ+ individuals is insufficient globally, every decision made deeply affects their lives. In Türkiye, as a hard but true sociological reality, patriarchal society, media channels pump out masculine dominance from morning to night, worsening the situation.
The institutional language of the state is a refined form of violence. The transition of the “Ministry for Women and Family ” to the “Ministry of Family and Social Policies ” represents a problematic mindset that defines women not as independent individuals but as “ elements to be managed” within the family. This implies that women are in need of protection and administration. Furthermore, the fact that “Women’s Policies” have often been managed by male ministers—or that women are only given key roles when the “family ” is involved—shows how the patriarchal system is reproduced by media and politics.
A stark example of this anti-gender discourse is when the then-Prime Minister used the phrase “Is she a girl or a woman?“ regarding activist Dilşat Aktaş (CNN Türk, 2011). This “de-feminization” process reached its peak on March 20, 2021, when Türkiye withdrew from the Istanbul Convention by a midnight decree. (Gümüştaş, 2021). This is a clear case of “legal backsliding” . Mainstream media acted as a “consent manufacturing” machine here, framing the withdrawal as “protecting national values” and “the survival of the family,” effectively placing women’s right to protection against traditional family values.
The Sensationalism of Femicide: The Case of Münevver Karabulut
Media reflections of femicide often create a ground where social norms protect the perpetrator or passivize the victim. The 2009 murder of 17-year-old student Münevver Karabulut—who was brutally murdered and dismembered by her wealthy partner—a horrific act that concluded with her body being discovered in a trash container, sparking a national outcry and becoming a symbol of systemic failure in Türkiye.
At the same time the Karabulut case is a prototype of how the media transforms feminicide into a “sensational horror myth.” What separates this case from others is how the media framed this death as a consumable horror story rather than a structural problem. For instance, in 2008, 68 women were murdered, but names like Yeliz Günel or Ayşe Yalçın remained as short notes on the third page of newspapers. The media’s obsession with the Karabulut case served ratings rather than solutions.
Instead of focusing on a man deliberately killing a woman, the media chose storytelling based on sensational elements. They highlighted that the couple had seen the horror movie My Bloody Valentine 3D (Lussier, 2009) or that the murder house was “cursed” (Show Ana Haber, 2014). Moreover, the wealthy background of the Garipoğlu family and their influence in countries like Ukraine and Georgia raised many questions about political power and justice. By using words like “unfortunate” (talihsiz) for the victim, the media reduces the perpetrator’s agency and makes the victim appear passive in the public’s subconscious.
This linguistic construction eventually makes the victim’s private life or “virginity” a matter of public debate. We see a “hierarchy of victims” here; while some victims are sensationalized, others, like trans woman Hande Kader who was burned to death, are often ignored or judged by their identities (Arslan, 2016)..
The 2009 Karabulut case has recently found a haunting contemporary parallel. In early 2026, the body of Durdona Khakimova was discovered in a trash container- a visual echo of the Karabulut murder that reignited public trauma. However, as DW Türkçe reports, the tragedy deepens with the realization that this was not an isolated act of violence. Investigating journalists from BirGün revealed that the same perpetrators had also murdered Sayyora Ergashalieva, another migrant woman, whose death had remained invisible to the public eye. The intersection of their migrant status and the media’s relative silence on these ‘foreign’ victims underscores a new layer of the aesthetics of impunity: the systematic devaluation of lives that do not fit into the ‘national’ narrative.
The Aesthetics of Impunity
The most dangerous move by the media is shifting the focus from the victim to an “aesthetics of impunity” for the perpetrator. In cases ranging from Münevver Karabulut to the recent Gülistan Doku case, the media often describes killers as “angry lovers,” “troubled youths,” or “sons of respectable families” (Sancar, 2009). This framing reduces systemic male violence to an isolated “moment of madness.” Social media debates on “good behavior” or “unjust provocation” create public empathy for the killer. Here, the media does not just report news; it protects “masculine justice” and socializes impunity by aestheticizing violence.
Conclusion: The Need for Responsible Media
The transition from the ‘national horror’ of 2009 to the ‘normalized silence’ of 2026 demonstrates how effectively the aesthetics of impunity have socialized the public to accept legal backsliding. In Türkiye, where the government determines cultural codes through the press to restrict the evolution of gender roles, the media functions as a tool for this political restructuring. If the media continues to treat femicides—especially those of marginalized and migrant women—as sensationalist fragments rather than structural political failures, the cycle of impunity will only accelerate. The solution lies in a radical shift: the media must stop producing horror myths and instead frame femicides as what they truly are—systemic political issues and fundamental human rights violations.
