1154766

research-article2023
MCS0010.1177/01634437231154766Media, Culture & SocietyBhowmik and Fisher

Main Article

Media, Culture & Society

Framing the Israel-Palestine

2023, Vol. 45(5) 1019­–1035
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
conflict 2021: Investigation of sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/01634437231154766
https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437231154766
CNN’s coverage from a peace journals.sagepub.com/home/mcs

journalism perspective

Sima Bhowmik and Jolene Fisher

University of Colorado Boulder, USA

Abstract
This study uses textual analysis to examine CNN’s World News coverage of the 12-day
conflict between Israel and Palestine in May 2021. We bring into conversation the influential
factors that shape U.S. media coverage of other countries, as presented by Dorman and
Farhang, and Galtung’s concept of war journalism in our analysis. Our findings show that
CNN primarily took a war journalism approach to frame the conflict. However, calls for
consideration of Palestinian human-rights from members of U.S. Congress led to coverage
that aligned with a peace journalism framework. This finding illuminates the role of counter-
discourse by elite social members in influencing the framing of conflict coverage in
mainstream media. The study adds to our understanding of U.S. media coverage of ongoing
conflict between Israel and Palestine and the implications of war journalism versus peace
journalism frames with regards to public discourse and understanding.

Keywords
framing, Israel-Palestine conflict, peace journalism, rhetoric, textual analysis, war
journalism

Introduction
Western media, and specifically U.S.-based media, play a significant role in framing
images of foreign countries for their audiences (Saleem, 2007). An ‘image’, as used by
Saleem (2007) is a conceptual picture of a person or a country, which produces ‘some spe-
cific political, social, or religious understandings’ (p. 136). Scholars have argued that the

Corresponding author:
Jolene Fisher, Department of Advertising, Public Relations & Media Design, College of Media,
Communication and Information, University of Colorado Boulder, 1511 University Avenue, Boulder, CO
80309-0401, USA.
Email: Jolene.fisher@Colorado.edu
1020 Media, Culture & Society 45(5)

images created by U.S. media when covering other countries’ affairs generally align with
the governing administration’s political interests (Dorman and Farhang, 1987; Hawkins,
2011; Perez de Fransius, 2014; Şahin and Karayianni, 2020). Dorman and Farhang (1987)
argued that four key factors shape U.S. media coverage of other countries: (1) U.S. foreign
policy interests, (2) ideas of patriotism, (3) presidential agendas, and (4) government media
management techniques, including official press conferences, statements, etc. Though
Dorman and Farhang (1987) made their argument more than three decades ago, current
research shows there has been no significant change in representational patterns and poli-
cies (Carruthers, 2011). When the country covered is associated with U.S. political, eco-
nomic, and military interests, U.S. media tend to frame that country favorably (Bapat,
2011; Viser, 2003). More recently, Şahin and Karayianni (2020) argued that political elites
are powerful in determining and influencing news coverage regarding conflict and peace,
allowing them to shape coverage favorable to their political interests. Further, Hawkins
(2011) found that coverage of conflict stories by the mainstream news outlet CNN selected
and framed stories in ways that support U.S. political interests.
There are clear overlaps between the factors argued to be influential in shaping U.S.
coverage of other countries as presented by Dorman and Farhang (1987) and the concept
of war journalism (Galtung, 2003; Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005). War journalism is a
practice of covering conflict that is considered to be elite-, victory-, propaganda-, and
violence-oriented (Galtung, 2003). The concept of elite-oriented coverage parallels a
focus on foreign policy interests and presidential agendas, which are determined by elite
government actors. Victory-oriented coverage implies a winning and losing side, and a
victory of an ally or home country is, of course, important to a country’s foreign policy
interests. And the lines between propaganda, patriotism, and government media manage-
ment techniques can be blurry. In these ways, the factors that influence U.S. coverage of
other countries generally, and of other countries’ conflicts specifically, are similar.
Additionally, the practice of war journalism implies violence-oriented coverage, which
focuses on conflict and a goal of ‘winning’, creates an ‘us vs. them’ narrative, dehuman-
izes the other, and focuses on visible effects of violence (Galtung, 2003).
The framing of media stories, including coverage of conflict, influence broader social
understandings of issues and their solutions and can affect audience attitudes, percep-
tions, and behaviors (De Vreese, 2005). Thus, whether the media uses a war journalism
or peace journalism approach to covering conflict has important social, policy, and rela-
tional impacts (Richardson and Barkho, 2009). Lee and Maslog (2005) have even gone
so far as to argue that the practice of war journalism results in mass media becoming
‘willing accomplices in wartime propaganda and may even play a role in instigating
conflict’ (p. 314).
Alternatively, scholars and practitioners have emphasized an approach that would
allow journalists to play a more socially responsible role and promote a ‘culture of peace’
when reporting on conflict while still adhering to key journalistic values. In 1970,
Norwegian scholar Johan Galtung coined the term peace journalism as an alternative
approach to covering conflict (Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005). Peace journalism is a spe-
cific way to cover conflict where reporters provide historical context of the conflict,
present both sides’ voices equally in their coverage, and create space for conflict resolu-
tion considerations in their reporting (Galtung, 2003; Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005).
Bhowmik and Fisher 1021

According to Galtung (2003) peace journalism ‘tries to depolarize by showing the black
and white of all sides, and to deescalate by highlighting peace and conflict resolution as
much as violence’, while a war journalism approach may further polarize audiences and
escalate tension (p. 179). Galtung (2003) defined peace journalism as a ‘“journalism of
attachment” to all actual and potential victims’ whereas ‘war journalism only attaches to
“our” side’ (p. 179). He understands the two concepts as opposing frames that are used
in conflict coverage (Galtung, 2003).
The influential factors presented by Dorman and Farhang (1987) and the related con-
cepts of war and peace journalism have played an important role in shaping U.S. media
coverage of international conflicts, including ongoing conflict between Israel and
Palestine. As evidenced by research, Western-media tends to emphasize and favor the
perspective of the U.S. ally Israel when covering conflict between Israel and Palestine
(Noakes and Wilkins, 2002; Ozohu-Suleiman, 2014; Roy, 2012). Further, U.S. media
coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict tends to paint Palestine in a negative light
(Carruthers, 2011; Kressel, 1987; Noakes and Wilkins, 2002). For instance, Kressel
(1987) found that U.S. media regularly presented unbalanced coverage of conflict
between the two actors, often presenting Palestinians as terrorists, and failing to include
historical context for the conflict situation. And in their overview of news media repre-
sentation of the Palestinian movement from 1984 to 1998, Noakes and Wilkins (2002)
found Palestinians were often characterized as terrorists, Islamic militants, and the root
of political problems in the Middle East. While Noakes and Wilkins (2002) found that
such negative tones shifted toward more positive frames over the time of the studied
period, more recent research shows that patterns of reporting that represent Palestinians
in a negative light have continued (Ozohu-Suleiman, 2014; Roy, 2012).
This study considers how the policies of a new political administration under the
leadership of President Joe Biden, coming on the heels of a particularly fraught and divi-
sive previous political administration, influence coverage of ongoing conflict between
Israel and Palestine and the use of war or peace journalism frames. Further, it analyzes
the role of counter-narratives from elite members of U.S. government in disrupting exist-
ing discourse and agendas. From May 10 to May 21 of 2021, Israel and Palestine engaged
in a 12-day conflict where more than 250 Palestinians were killed and nearly 2000
wounded, and at least thirteen Israelis lost their lives (CFR, 2021). While, expectedly,
many elite governmental voices spoke out in support of U.S. ally Israel, some members
of U.S. Congress were vocal in voicing support for Palestinians and questioning whether
Israel had engaged in human-rights abuses. These Congresswomen, known colloquially
as ‘The Squad’, faced intense backlash from colleagues and public audiences on social
media, and the controversy created by their statements was covered in mainstream media
(CNN, 2019). Might these powerful dissident voices alter the historical patterns of cov-
erage previously seen when U.S. media reports on conflict between Israel and Palestine?
Accordingly, this study employs textual analysis to analyze the U.S. media organiza-
tion CNN’s coverage of the 12-day Israel-Palestine conflict in order to determine its use
of war journalism or peace journalism frames, and to ascertain the factors influential to
the use of such frames (foreign policy, remarks by elites, etc.). Given the influence of
elite voices and agendas in shaping the framing of international conflicts, as evidenced
by Dorman and Farhang’s (1987) framework and the concept of war journalism, this
1022 Media, Culture & Society 45(5)

study considers the role of a new presidential administration and elite-dissident voices in
contributing to the use of war or peace frames in conflict coverage. The study begins
with a literature review that details framing theory and the concepts of war and peace
journalism, followed by a method section and findings. Implications of the research are
laid out in the discussion section, followed by study limitations and directions for future
research in the conclusion.

Literature review
This study examines CNN’s framing of the 2-week long Israel-Palestinian conflict in
2021 using the concepts of war journalism and peace journalism. According to Entman
(1993), ‘to frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more
salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem defini-
tion, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the
item described’ (p. 52). Tankard et al. (1991) described a media frame as ‘the central
organizing idea for news content that supplies a context and suggests what the issue is
through the use of selection, emphasis, exclusion and elaboration’ (p. 3). And through
this framing process ‘the texts and images provide a dominant interpretation more read-
ily perceivable, acceptable, and memorable than other interpretations’ (Entman, 1991).
According to De Vreese (2005), the construction and use of frames in news coverage
has relevant impacts on audiences. De Vreese (2005) argued that three types of audience
effects can be linked to news framing: information processing effects, attitudinal effects,
and behavioral effects. As such, the use of war versus peace journalism approaches to
conflict coverage have important implications for audiences’ attitudes, behaviors, and
perceptions of those conflicts, including support for certain types of solutions and poli-
cies. Importantly, both text and visuals play an important role in the meaning making
process for audiences. Further, while studies on framing often emphasize the role of text,
Zelizer (2010) observed that images, or visuals, along with the text further contextualize
the story for the audience in a way that text alone cannot.
Since the first World War to recent abuses in Rwanda, mass media has played an
often-inflammatory role in depicting conflict (Ozohu-Suleiman, 2014). Mass media
channels are able to utilize texts, audio, and visuals to communicate about conflicts in
persuasive ways that may influence audiences’ argumentative perspective (Blair, 2004).
Richardson and Barkho (2009) argued that it is crucial to understand that the media use
specific techniques to report conflicts to influence and motivate the audience. This means
the media not only report the facts, but they also play an active role in shaping audience
opinions toward conflict through their reporting.
In most cases, media takes the side of power (Hawkins, 2011; Şahin and Karayianni,
2020; Shinar, 2009), as aligning itself with powerful actors lends financial or political
advantage. With regards to reporting on conflict this generally results in a style of cover-
age known as war journalism, which is ‘propaganda and elite oriented’ (Galtung, 2003).
Shinar (2009) in his research about the 2006 war in Lebanon concluded that Canadian
and Israeli newspapers relied more on elite voices than general people, while using vic-
timizing language such as ‘worse’, ‘victims’, ‘massacre’. Looking at the political orien-
tation of coverage, Shinar (2009) found newspapers mostly emphasized one side of the
war, which aligns with a war journalism frame. The researcher concluded that the more
Bhowmik and Fisher 1023

partisan the coverage, the more newspapers covered only one party’s perspective of the
conflict. As Shinar (2009) argued, the choice of covering one side or both sides in con-
flict stories not only depends on journalists’ individual choices but is shaped by organiza-
tion and social institutional influence on conflict coverage.
Media reporting on conflict has many dimensions. On the one hand, it provides
important and immediate information through breaking news; on the other hand, it also
tends to deliver hegemonic, partisan, and ideology driven angles (Ross and Bantimaroudis,
2006; Roy and Ross, 2011). Western media tends to favor reporting strategies that inten-
sify conflict, dramatize the incident, use emotive words, and support political powers/
elites, all of which aligns with a war journalism approach (Hawkins, 2011; Roy, 2009;
Şahin and Karayianni, 2020). Galtung (2003) argued that war journalism,

Dominant in the media, sees a conflict as a battle, as a sports arena or a gladiator circus. The
parties, usually reduced to two, are combatants in a struggle to impose their goals. The reporting
model is that of military command: who advances, who capitulates short of their goals; counting
the losses in terms of numbers killed, wounded, and material damage. The zero-sum perspective
draws upon sports reporting where ‘winning is not everything, it is the only thing’. (p. 177)

Galtung and Ruge (1965), suggest a few reasons as to why Western media tends to take
such an approach: negative news attracts viewers; it creates sensation among the audi-
ence; and, sometimes, media is used as a propaganda tool. For instance, Şahin and
Karayianni (2020) argued that political elites are powerful in determining and influenc-
ing news coverage regarding conflict and peace. They stated that ‘the closed-door diplo-
macy also allows them to control what information to disseminate, when and how,
strengthening their power over the news media’ (p. 1371). They referred to this as ‘une-
qual affiliation’ as reporters depend on political power for information and to guide news
framing. Additionally, researchers have noted that U.S.-based media coverage of other
country’s issues is influenced by the status of that country’s relationship with the U.S.
and its place with regards to U.S. foreign interests (Yu and Riffe, 1989), which further
influences the approach to conflict coverage in U.S. media. Specifically, Hawkins (2011)
found that in its coverage of conflict, CNN more often covered conflict affiliated with
US politics and their interests, and that their framing of conflict stories is biased toward
the US power structure. The above helps contextualize historical U.S. media coverage of
the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, which tends to favor the position of
Israel, the U.S.’s ally, and employs a war journalism framework (Fahmy and Neuman,
2012; Noakes and Wilkins, 2002; Ozohu-Suleiman, 2014; Roy, 2012).
Alternatively, we see researchers encouraging news media to adopt an approach
known as ‘peace journalism’ when covering conflict stories (Kempf, 2002; Lee and
Maslog, 2005; Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005). According to Lynch and McGoldrick
(2005), peace journalism denotes a choice-making process by editors and reporters when
reporting on conflict that provides non-violent responses. Discussing the goal of peace
journalism, Galtung (1986) stated that a peaceful angle should be promoted, where
reporters will give voice to the voiceless. Galtung identified four elements necessary to
peace journalism: coverage that is peace-oriented, truth-oriented, people-oriented, and
solution-oriented. A peace journalism approach, according to Galtung (2003) focuses on
conflict transformation and considers the deeper roots of the conflict, outcomes beyond
1024 Media, Culture & Society 45(5)

one party ‘winning’ and the other ‘losing’, violence prevention, effects of trauma, and
who reaps the benefits of reconstruction.
Galtung (2003) argued that more reporting using a peace journalism approach would
have been influential in helping ongoing conflict in Northern Ireland be resolved sooner,
whereas ‘Focus on the violence of the IRA/RUC has only hidden the conflict and nourished
more violence’ (p. 178). Galtung (2003) and Lynch and McGoldrick (2005) have argued that
by following the positions of peace journalism, the media can perform more socially respon-
sible coverage and promote peace. BBC correspondent Bell (1997) described this as a ‘jour-
nalism of attachment’. He defined the concept ‘journalism of attachment’ as ‘Journalism
that cares as well as knows; that is aware of its responsibilities; and will not stand neutrally
between good and evil, right and wrong, the victim and the oppressor’ (Bell, 1997: 8). In the
same page, Bell proclaimed that ‘we in the press, and especially in television, which is its
most powerful division, do not stand apart from the world; We are a part of it; We exercise
a certain influence, and we have to know that’ (Bell, 1997: 8).
Critics of peace journalism claim that the practice goes against the journalistic goal of
objectivity. Some have argued that a journalist’s job is not to advocate for peace (Loyn,
2007), rather they should present the facts as they are. However, we argue that peace
journalism’s approach is in line with Tuchman’s (1972) four approaches for objectivity,
which includes providing conflict evidence where both parties will be included in the
story, adding supportive evidence, quoting what other people or groups say, and structur-
ing a story with the most important information first. Given peace journalism’s focus on
including voices from all sides of a conflict, it may meet Tuchman’s (1972) criteria better
than a war journalism approach does.
Further, Iggers (1998) in his book ‘Good News, Bad News: Journalism Ethics and
The Public Interest’ claimed that, in the end, this pretext of objectivity means that jour-
nalists are not fulfilling the social responsibility of journalism. He argued ‘news media
failed to meet basic duties to deliver stories the way it should be delivered to the audi-
ence’ as conflict stories are mostly delivered as ‘ineffectual, meaningless, irresponsible,
and destructive’, (pp. 4–5). Iggers (1998) stated that there is a ‘profound contradiction
between the stated mission of the press, which is to provide citizens with the information
they need to play an active role in democratic life, and the reality of daily practice, which
systematically compromises values of public service in favor of other interests’ (p. 5).
Despite the fact that the concept of objectivity is frequently emphasized in traditional
journalism, research on the pattern of conflict reporting in Western media makes clear
such coverage is not, in fact, objective. Rather, research shows that objectivity is often
neglected in war or conflict reporting as journalists prioritize national interests, patriot-
ism, censorship, and even propaganda (Fahmy and Neuman, 2012; Iggers, 1998; Ozohu-
Suleiman, 2014; Roy, 2012).

Method
This study used textual analysis to determine the use of war journalism and peace jour-
nalism frames in CNN’s coverage of the 12-day conflict between Israel and Palestine.
Textual analysis ‘involves understanding language, symbols, and/or pictures present in
texts to gain information regarding how people make sense of and communicate life and
Bhowmik and Fisher 1025

life experiences’ (Allen, 2017: 1754). Textual analysis can be used to study written, vis-
ual, or recorded texts to identify messages within the media (Allen, 2017). Bainbridge
et al. (2008) argued that the videos that accompany text can increase public understand-
ing of the content. Richardson and Barkho (2009) referred to this as a dialectical relation-
ship between text and context. As such, it is relevant to analyze both visuals, including
video images, and text in conflict coverage.
Many researchers have used textual analysis to understand media framing regarding
conflict coverage. For instance, Zhang and Luther (2020) examined three news outlets’,
CNN, Al Jazeera and Sputnik, framing of the Syrian civil war and ongoing humanitarian
crises. The researchers argued that textual analysis is an important approach because it
reveals the types of frames that transnational news outlets conveyed to their global con-
sumers. Painter and Ferrucci (2019) used textual analysis to determine the frames used
in the underground GI press during the Vietnam War. Roy (1996) used textual analysis to
study how African Americans are depicted on network television news and to study an
ABC news story about Washington, DC Mayor Marion Barry. In that study, the author
looked at both visuals and verbal messages and argued that ‘only a close and critical
examination of both verbal and visual text, shot by shot, can reveal the messages that are
subtle and covert’ (Roy, 1996: 318).
Coverage created by U.S.-based media outlet CNN was selected for three reasons.
First, although it is a U.S. news outlet, it has worldwide coverage, thus it delivers its
message to a broad audience. CNN has been operating its global news for more than four
decades (CNN, 2009) and has established its television news throughout the world (Tian
and Stewart, 2005). CNN World News is aired on CNN International, CNN International
Asia Pacific, and the Middle East. The World News content is the same worldwide.
Secondly, the U.S. plays a significant role in foreign policy matters worldwide. As a
U.S.-based cable news network, CNN will likely reflect the U.S. administration’s strat-
egy on conflict issues. Given that the Israel-Palestinian conflict of 2021 was the first
conflict faced by President Joe Biden after being inaugurated in January 2021, it is of
interest to determine if and how CNN reflects the current administration’s stance on the
conflict. Third, CNN publicly acknowledges that journalistic values such as accuracy,
objectivity, and fairness are the guiding values that shape its practices (CNN, 2016).
Analyzing how a U.S.-based, liberal media organization committed to key journalistic
values with a global reach frames conflict stories, and the influence of political, social,
and cultural factors, is relevant to our understanding of the use of war and peace journal-
ism in covering conflict and the role of media in shaping understanding of international
conflict for their audiences.
The researchers collected the daily CNN World News hour-long news bulletins from
May 10, 2021, to May 21, 2021, for a total of 13 news stories on the Israel-Palestine
conflict. This time frame is crucial because May 10th is the date when the Israel-
Palestinian conflict 2021 started and May 21st is when leaders of Israel and Palestine,
with the help of the U.S. and other countries, agreed to a cease fire. This period of cover-
age gives us the real-time picture of CNN’s approach to reporting about this conflict. The
CNN news bulletins were collected through the Internet Archive. The 13 news stories
ranged in length from 1 minute 30 seconds to 15 minutes. News stories from the start of
the conflict were shorter, but coverage increased in length as the conflict went on.
1026 Media, Culture & Society 45(5)

An inductive approach was used to analyze the content. As Zhang and Luther (2020)
observed, during the exploratory analysis phase, it is appropriate to generate themes
before identifying specific frames. After identifying key themes, the researchers deter-
mined how the prominent themes related to war journalism and peace journalism frames.
In the data analysis process, the researchers adopted Emerson et al.’s (2011) three-step
data analysis procedure. First, the researchers read through the text and looked at the
visuals and made notes. In the second step, they again read the text and watched the visu-
als to get an idea of overarching themes or patterns that emerged from the content. Third,
they again analyzed the content with themes in mind.

Findings
A total of 13 stories aired over 12 days were analyzed. The dominant themes that sur-
faced in the analysis of CNN’s coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict aligned with the
elements, Galtung (2003 has attributed to a war journalism framework. They are, (i) an
emphasis on comments from elite persons from the U.S. and Israel, (ii) a bias toward
U.S. ally Israel and an absence of historical context when discussing the cause of the
conflict, (iii) the use of language and visuals depicting destruction and violence, and (iv)
a focus on one side ‘winning’. Importantly, however, three stories, considered human
rights issues and loss of life in Palestine with one even including the phrase ‘Palestine
Lives Matter’ in coverage.
The researcher found that the majority of coverage emphasized an Israeli-perspective
on the conflict, using interviews with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and
other officials of the Israeli government. Alternatively, no official statement from the
Palestinian government was shared during the 12 days of coverage. In the 13 stories,
context on how the conflict started was given only twice (once on May 10 and once on
May 11). After May 11, there was no mention of historical context of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. U.S.-Israeli foreign relations were repeatedly referred to in the cov-
erage and it was reported that the U.S. supports Israel’s operation (air strike) in the Gaza
strip. The examples below are representative of this coverage.

‘President Biden talked with Israeli Prime minister Netanyahu. The president shared his grave
concern. U.S. is working tirelessly by diplomatic channels to bring an end to the conflict’ (May
16, 2021).

‘The Biden administration made it very clear that they believe that Israel has a right to defend
itself from these rocket attacks carried out by the militant groups Hamas’ (May 17, 2021).

Throughout the 12 days, coverage repeatedly referred to Hamas’s attack on Israel, and
how many people were killed by Hamas’s rocket launched into Tel-Aviv. Alternatively,
there were few reports on Israeli attacks on Gaza.

‘You can see the size of the impact. The damage extending up to the buildings around us’ (May
13, 2021).
Bhowmik and Fisher 1027

‘We know already today Hamas fired rockets in the Tel-Aviv area. The sirens went off twice
and a 50-year-old man was killed on the street just outside one of the small towns of Tel-Aviv.
It does not appear that any de-escalation will take place any time soon’ (May 15, 2021).

‘This is the scene of the deadliest attack by Hamas or one of the other groups in Gaza. A mortar
and rocket attack on this location here. Two people were killed and seven were injured’ (May
18, 2021)

‘In Ashwood today a Hamas rocket hit a residential building, three people were lightly wounded
there’ (May 17, 2021).

Coverage mostly relied on interviews and statements from elite members of U.S. and
Israeli government, including the U.S. President Joe Biden, the Israeli Prime Minister,
the U.S. Secretary of State, the Head of Israel’s Defense, and U.S. lawmakers. There
were rare instances when the views of everyday people from Israel and Palestine were
included in the coverage.
On May 16, coverage used a statement by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu justifying
the airstrike in Gaza that destroyed a building that housed media organizations AP and
Al-Jazeera, repeating throughout the coverage that Hamas’s militants were merged with
the general population in Gaza, and thus the strike on the building housing the news
organizations was necessary.

Israeli Prime minister Netanyahu and Israeli defense forces have both said clearly there were
Hamas military installations belonging to Hamas’s military intelligence wing. And it’s not clear
precisely whether these were offices or what sort of equipment was there. But the Prime Minister
seemed to indicate that somehow Hamas was sort of piggybacking and taking advantage of the
fact that there were media organizations with data capabilities in that building (May 16, 2021).

The same bulletin also carried an interview of Frank Lowenstein who is a former Special
Envoy for Israel-Palestinian negotiations, who justified U.S. policies on Israel.
CNN’s coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict 2021 consistently focused on an Israeli
perspective and justified Israel’s actions throughout the conflict. For example, in the May
19, 2021, bulletin titled ‘On the Brink’ CNN brought in their International Diplomatic
Editor Brian Seltzer to discuss Israeli military official’s justification for attacking the
building housing AP and Al-Jazeera. He stated, ‘We do know they warned journalists so
they could get out prior to the attack, which is why no one was killed’ (May 19, 2021).
Coverage often emphasized Israel’s military strength and larger arsenal. In their May 13,
2021 ‘On the Brink’ bulletin, CNN Correspondent Hadas Gold while reporting from Jerusalem
said, ‘They (Israel) have also wiped out a significant number of senior Hamas’s operatives.
They also leveled three – at least – buildings that hosted important Hamas’s offices as well.
And, fortunately, of course, the death toll is mounting’ (May 13, 2021). The reporter’s state-
ment that ‘fortunately, of course, the death toll is mounting’ points to hope that one side, Israel,
will win and the other, Hamas and relatedly Palestine, will lose. Perhaps the bluntest pro-war
positioning came from Nick Robertson in the Breaking News bulletin headlined ‘Fragile
Truce’ on May 21, 2021. Reacting to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to
call for a ceasefire, Robertson reported from near the Gaza border and said,
1028 Media, Culture & Society 45(5)

The Prime Minister has been defending his decision to have this ceasefire. He (Netanyahu) said
they killed 25 Hamas commanders, 200 Hamas fighters, and took out more than 60 miles of
tunnel. He is defending his position. But I have been out and about talking to people and a lot
of people have concerns. One is that this ceasefire isn’t the pathway to a durable peace. But a
lot of people have been telling me they think the government should have continued on, and
even sent tanks into Gaza and just dealt Hamas a much bigger blow. So, this is not a shining
moment domestically, politically if you will, for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. We
haven’t seen anyone on the streets here celebrating (May 21, 2021).

The reporter emphasized the position that people were unhappy that the conflict was end-
ing without a clear victor but did not present any interviews with ordinary people.
Throughout the 12 days of coverage, the reporters and presenters used emotive lan-
guage that was violence and conflict focused. Words like ‘escalating tension’, ‘escalating
conflict’, ‘worsening conflict’, ‘violent clashes’, ‘alarming violence’, ‘tensions soar’,
‘boiling situation’, ‘rioting’, and ‘militants’ were frequently used by CNN in their reports.
Such strong words were also used at times to justify the actions of well-armed Israeli
forces against Palestinian civilian mobs usually armed with stones or bricks. As Galtung
(1986) argued, using such language when covering a conflict situation can escalate ten-
sion and worsen the situation.
Similarly, visuals used concentrated on images of destruction. CNN often showed
Hamas’s rocket bombing, smoke bellowing from Israeli air strikes in Gaza, street battles
between Palestinians and Israeli soldiers, or huge buildings grounded in a flash. These
types of visual presentations were seen almost every day in the bulletins. CNN did not
portray the humanitarian aspect in its coverage; rather, it showed police counterattack on
civilians. The day the conflict started between Israel and Palestine, CNN showed footage
of police action. On May 15, the visuals repeatedly showed an Israeli air strike which
destroyed the 12-storied building in Gaza that housed media organizations like AP and
Al-Jazeera along with civilian residents. The majority of visuals used in the coverage
were filled with fire and black smoke from the attacks (Images 1–3).

Image 1. Nic Robertson, International Diplomatic Editor of CNN, giving the updates of
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (CNN, 2021a). (May 16, 2021, 00:11:03).
Bhowmik and Fisher 1029

Image 2. Hadas Gold, Jerusalem Correspondent of CNN, describing the Hamas attack on
Ashkelon, Israel (CNN, 2021b). (May 11, 2021, 00:06:13).

Image 3. Hamas attack on Israeli territory destroying agricultural land (CNN, 2021c). (May
18, 2021, 00:06:09).

As evidenced from the above, the majority of CNN’s coverage of the 12-day conflict
used a war journalism frame, prioritizing elite government voices, creating an idea of ‘two-
sides’ and showing a clear bias toward the Israeli ‘side’, using violence and destruction
focused language and images, and ignoring historical context relevant to understanding the
conflict as well as humanitarian issues specifically with regards to Palestinian civilians.
However, three stories did contain elements that align with a peace journalism frame.
On May 16, 2021, the bulletin headlined ‘Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’ brought a new
dynamic to the issue. The reporters discussed the pressure being put on the Biden admin-
istration by the left-leaning U.S. Congress members linking the ‘Black Lives Matter’
1030 Media, Culture & Society 45(5)

movement in the U.S. with ‘Palestinian Lives matter’ in the Middle East. In the same bul-
letin CNN National Correspondent Suzanne Malveaux reporting from Capitol Hill said,

Many lawmakers said they stand by Israel, that Israel had a right to defend itself. But what is
interesting and what is notable here is that there are more lawmakers who are willing to speak
out and forcefully say that they are calling for Palestinian rights. They are framing this a bit
differently than before. They are saying that this is racial justice issue, that it can be linked to
other causes . . . and this is coming from the progressive branch of the democratic party.

The May 17, 2021, bulletin titled ‘On the Brink’ included a joint letter issued by 28 US
Senators calling for a cease fire. The story also included Democratic lawmaker Rashida
Tlaib’s Tweet, which was posted in response to Israel’s bombing of the building housing
AP and Al-Jazeera and included in full in the bulletin:

‘Israel targeting media sources is so the world can’t see Israel’s war crimes led by apartheid-in-
chief Netanyahu. It’s so the world can’t see the killing of babies, children, and their parents. It’s
so the world can’t see Palestinians being massacred’.

And CNN Chief International Anchor Christiane Amanpour in an interview on May 14,
2021, admitted that ‘it’s not an equal fight’. Amanpour reiterated that Israel was heavily
defended and supported by the United States and stated that, ‘It’s the civilians who are
caught and who are primary victims including children . . . It’s always the civilians who
pay the highest price, for political dysfunction’.
While casualty figures were included throughout the 12-days of coverage, civilian
suffering was not portrayed in CNN’s coverage and the three stories above are the only
clear references to such sufferings while they were advocating for ceasefire.

Discussion
Textual analysis of CNN’s reporting on the 12-day conflict between Israel and Palestine
in May 10 to 21 of 2021 clearly shows the use of a war journalism frame in the organiza-
tion’s coverage. The reporting focused on a conflict between two parties, using an ‘us vs
them’ approach in which only one side could ‘win’. Most of CNN’s reports were clearly
one-sided, emphasizing Israel’s perspective. While official statements and spokesper-
sons for Israel were often included in the coverage, no official statements from Palestine
were represented. Through this reporting, it was clear that the U.S. government sup-
ported Israel in this conflict. As discussed earlier, U.S. media’s coverage of international
issues is driven by U.S. policies and foreign interests. The coverage of the conflict by
CNN certainly reinforced the positions of the Biden administration, with one-sided
reporting that could be said to look like something akin to propaganda in the support of
the U.S. government.
Visuals relied primarily on images of destruction, which can escalate tension. And
consideration of the humanitarian issues and suffering of civilians, and specifically
Palestinian civilians, was totally absent in these stories. Further, the ‘two sides’
engaged in the conflict are represented quite differently across coverage, with report-
ing justifying Israel’s actions as a defense against a Palestinian aggressor, while at the
Bhowmik and Fisher 1031

same time acknowledging Israel as the stronger military power. The analysis made
clear that throughout the 12-day conflict, reports on Israel and the Israeli perspective
dominated text and images. As such, CNN’s coverage of the conflict can be considered
unbalanced.
Importantly, considerations for the suffering faced by Palestinian civilians during the
conflict was rarely included in coverage. CNN aired only one interview with a Palestinian
civilian (on May 17) who was injured by the bombing while saving his son. In other
coverage, Palestinians were seen fleeing destruction but were not heard from. Further,
some coverage included images of Palestinians throwing stones at Israeli police, posi-
tioning the citizens as aggressors. Based on the patterns of total coverage, it is clear that
two of the stories that did include an emphasis on the rights and suffering of Palestinian
civilians were sparked by statements made by U.S. members of Congress with regards to
the rights of Palestinian people and abuses by the Israeli government. If not for these
dissident voices in the U.S. government, it is likely that those stories would not have
included this perspective. The third story brought up the idea of an ‘unequal’ fight and
the devastation faced by civilians via statements made by CNN Chief International
Anchor Christiane Amanpour. Given Amanpour’s status as an elite reporter in the media
space, her statements questioning the dominant narrative and considering the human
rights aspect were of great import.
The three stories referenced here included elements of peace journalism by voicing
concern for all parties, problematizing violence, focusing on the people and the trauma
they were experiencing through this conflict, and questioning dominant narratives. From
the analysis presented here, it seems that such coverage would not have occurred without
the attention given to the members of Congress who were, as the story on May 16
reported, ‘willing to speak out and forcefully say that they are calling for Palestinian
rights. They are framing this a bit differently than before’.
These abovementioned findings of CNN support previous research (Fahmy and
Neuman, 2012; Hawkins, 2011; Ozohu-Suleiman, 2014; Roy, 2012) which argued that
conflict stories are covered mainly from the perspective of national interest. Like
Hawkins (2011), we argue that in doing so, news organization neglect the media’s
‘watchdog’ role and ignore or misuse the norms of objectivity, leaving them unable to
meaningfully participate in social reforms or policy making processes. As Tuchman
(1972) explained the elements of objectivity include incorporating both parties’ voices
and giving truths about conflict. Based on the findings presented here, the CNN coverage
does the opposite. Most of the coverage of CNN shows use of a war journalism frame,
which Galtung (1986, 1998) defined as propaganda and elite oriented.

Conclusion
Research on U.S. media coverage of ongoing conflicts between Israel and Palestine
shows that the framing of such coverage is influenced by U.S. foreign policy and politi-
cal interests, and that such coverage tends to take a war journalism approach. Analysis of
CNN’s coverage of the 12-day conflict between Israel and Palestine in May of 2021
shows a continuation of such patterns. In its 12 days of coverage, CNN prioritized an
Israeli perspective, highlighted statements from elite Israeli and U.S. leaders, used
1032 Media, Culture & Society 45(5)

violence-oriented images and language, and ignored important historical contexts and
humanitarian considerations. As Galtung (2003) and others have argued, such an
approach limits audiences’ abilities to consider conflict-resolution and peace perspec-
tives not based on a ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ side. And as Noakes and Wilkins (2002)
argued, U.S. audiences’ comprehension and interpretation of the Palestinian people, their
movement, and ongoing conflict between Palestine and Israel is highly dependent on
how the U.S. news media portray these stories. As the authors found, ‘actions of social
movements and shifts in social and political contexts do matter’ with regards to media
coverage (Noakes and Wilkins, 2002: 666). We found this to be true with regards to dis-
sident statements made by some members of U.S. Congress, which led to consideration,
albeit brief, of humanitarian issues and the suffering of Palestinian civilians within news
stories. This finding has important implications for understanding the ways in which a
peace journalism perspective might enter conflict coverage. As Dorman and Farhang
(1987) and Galtung (2003) argued, the focus on elite voices, and specifically government
officials, plays an important role in conflict coverage and usually results in coverage that
aligns with U.S. policy interests and a war journalism frame. In this case, however, coun-
ter-discourse by elite political actors led to elements of a peace journalism frame in some
stories. This speaks to the continued influence of elite government voices in shaping
news coverage of international conflicts and makes clear that if a peace journalism
approach is to be seen in news coverage it will be important to see discourse that takes a
peace journalism perspective in political discourse as well.
It is critical to consider the role war versus peace journalism approaches may play in
ongoing conflicts such as the one between Israel and Palestine. Biased presentations of
conflict undermine quality and socially responsible journalism, and, as some researchers
have argued may, worst-case scenario, exacerbate conflict situations, and best-case sce-
nario, inhibit meaningful discourse around conflict resolution in the public sphere. Such
considerations are especially critical given this historical moment of strong political
polarization, widespread dis- and misinformation, and a growing sense of public mistrust
in news media. Covering conflict in a way that could be seen as propagandistic will only
hamper the quality of journalism and the publics’ perceptions of it. And taking a war
journalism, rather than peace journalism, approach does little to achieve expectations of
journalism as a socially responsible practice meant to support civic discourse and deci-
sion making.
A clear limitation of this study is its focus on only one media outlet, CNN. Considering
coverage across additional news organizations could provide further understanding with
regards to the elements influential to U.S. media coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Further, comparison of U.S. media with other Western countries’ media could present a
broader picture of current patterns of coverage of international conflict and the role of
dissident voices in shaping such coverage.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Bhowmik and Fisher 1033

ORCID iDs
Sima Bhowmik https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3538-5305
Jolene Fisher https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8015-6990

References
Allen M (ed.) (2017) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Bainbridge J, Goc N and Tynan L (2008) Media and Journalism: New Approaches to Theory and
Practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bapat NA (2011) Transnational terrorism, US military aid, and the incentive to misrepresent.
Journal of Peace Research 48(3): 303–318.
Bell M (1997) TV news: How far should we go? British Journalism Review 8(1): 7–16.
Blair JA (2004) The rhetoric of visual arguments. In: Hill CA and Helmers M (eds) Defining
Visual Rhetorics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, pp.41–62.
Carruthers SL (2011) The Media at War. Basingstoke: Macmillan International Higher Education.
CFR (2021) Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Global Conflict Tracker. Council on Foreign Relations.
Available at: https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/israeli-palestinian-conflict
(accessed 12 November 2021).
CNN (2009) CNN Launches. Available at: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cnn-
launches (accessed 12 November 2021).
CNN (2016) Vision Statement. Available at: https://cnnsoc185.wordpress.com/vision-statement/
(accessed 12 November 2021).
CNN (2019) Here are the 4 congresswomen known as ‘The Squad’ targeted by Trump’s racist
tweets, July 15. Available at: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/who-are-the-squad/
index.html (accessed 15 March 2022).
CNN (2021a) Dozens reported dead as violence escalates between Israelis, Palestinians.
CNN Newsroom. (Online Video). Available at: https://archive.org/details/
CNNW_20210511_130000_CNN_Newsroom_With_Poppy_Harlow_and_Jim_Sciutto
(accessed 12 November 2021).
CNN (2021b) Israeli-Palestinian conflict. CNN Newsroom. (Online Video). Available at: https://
archive.org/details/CNNW_20210516_180000_CNN_Newsroom_With_Fredricka_
Whitfield (accessed 12 November 2021).
CNN (2021c). After quiet night, rocket fire resumes from Gaza into Israel. CNN Newsroom.
(Online Video). Available from: https://archive.org/details/CNNW_20210518_130000_
CNN_Newsroom_With_Poppy_Harlow_and_Jim_Sciutto (accessed 12 November 2021).
De Vreese CH (2005) News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal and
Document Design 13(1): 51–62.
Dorman WA and Farhang M (1987) The US Press and Iran. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Emerson RM, Fretz RI and Shaw LL (2011) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Entman RM (1991) Framing US coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives of the
KAL and Iran Air incidents. Journal of Communication 41(4): 6–27.
Entman RM (1993) Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. In: McQuail D (ed.)
McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. London: SAGE, pp.390–397.
Fahmy S and Neuman R (2012) Shooting war or peace photographs? An examination of news-
wires’ coverage of the conflict in Gaza. Mass Communication and Society 15(2): 169–200.
1034 Media, Culture & Society 45(5)

Galtung J (1986) On the role of the media in worldwide security and peace. In: Varis T (ed.) Peace
and Communication. San Jose, Costa Rica: Universidad para La Paz, pp.249–266.
Galtung J (1998) After violence: 3R, Reconstruction, reconciliation, resolution: Coping with vis-
ible and invisible effects of war and violence. Princeton, NJ: TRANSCEND.
Galtung J (2003) Peace journalism. Media Asia 30(3): 177–180.
Galtung J and Ruge MH (1965) The structure of foreign news: The presentation of the Congo,
Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of Peace Research 2(1):
64–90.
Hawkins V (2011) Media selectivity and the other side of the CNN effect: The consequences of
not paying attention to conflict. Media War & Conflict 4(1): 55–68.
Iggers J (1998) Good News, Bad News: Journalism Ethics and the Public Interest. Boulder, CO:
Westview Publishers.
Kempf W (2002) Conflict coverage and conflict escalation. Journalism and the New World Order
2: 59–72.
Kressel NJ (1987) Biased judgments of media bias: A case study of the Arab-Israeli dispute.
Political Psychology 8: 211–227.
Lee ST and Maslog CC (2005) War or peace journalism? Asian newspaper coverage of conflicts.
Journal of Communication 55(2): 311–329.
Loyn D (2007) Good journalism or peace journalism? Conflict and Communication 6(2): 1–10.
Lynch J and McGoldrick A (2005) Peace Journalism.Gloucestershire: Hawthorn Press.
Noakes JA and Wilkins KG (2002) Shifting frames of the Palestinian movement in US news.
Media Culture & Society 24(5): 649–671.
Ozohu-Suleiman Y (2014) War journalism on Israel/Palestine: Does contra-flow really make a
difference? Media War & Conflict 7(1): 85–103.
Painter C and Ferrucci P (2019) ‘Ask what you can do to the army’: A textual analysis of the
underground GI press during the Vietnam war. Media War & Conflict 12(3): 354–367.
Perez de and Fransius M (2014) Peace journalism case study: US media coverage of the Iraq war.
Journalism 15(1): 72–88.
Richardson JE and Barkho L (2009) Reporting Israel/Palestine: Ethnographic insights into the
verbal and visual rhetoric of BBC journalism. Journalism Studies 10(5): 594–622.
Ross SD and Bantimaroudis P (2006) Frame shifts and catastrophic events: The attacks of September
11, 2001, and New York Times's portrayals of Arafat and Sharon. Mass Communication &
Society 9(1): 85–101.
Roy A (1996) Marion barry's road to redemption: A textual analysis of ABC's news story aired on
14 September 1994. Howard Journal of Communications 7(4): 315–327.
Roy S (2009) Media Representations and “othering” of the UN in US Media in Times of Conflict
Post 9/11. Pullman, WA: Washington State University.
Roy S (2012) Culturally unconscious: Intercultural implications of the New York Times repre-
sentation of the Israel–Palestine conflict in 2009 and 2011. International Communication
Gazette 74(6): 556–570.
Roy S and Ross SD (2011) The gaze of US and Indian media on terror in Mumbai: A com-
parative analysis. In: Shaw IS, Lynch J and Hackett A (eds) Expanding Peace Journalism:
Comparative and Critical Approaches. Sydney: Sydney University Press, pp.198–200.
Şahin S and Karayianni C (2020) Journalism matters: reporting peace in Cyprus. Media Culture &
Society 42(7-8): 1360–1376.
Saleem N (2007) US media framing of foreign countries image: An analytical perspective.
Canadian Journal of Media Studies 2(1): 130–162.
Shinar D (2009) Can peace journalism make progress? The coverage of the 2006 Lebanon war in
Canadian and Israeli media. International Communication Gazette 71(6): 451–471.
Bhowmik and Fisher 1035

Tankard J, Hendrickson L, Silberman J, et al. (1991) Media frames: Approaches to conceptualiza-

tion and measurement. In: Annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication, Boston, MA, August.
Tian Y and Stewart CM (2005) Framing the SARS crisis: A computer-assisted text analysis of CNN
and BBC online news reports of SARS. Asian Journal of Communication 15(3): 289–301.
Tuchman G (1972) Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen's notions of objec-
tivity. American Journal of Sociology 77(4): 660–679.
Viser M (2003) Attempted Objectivity: An Analysis of the New York Timesand Ha’aretz and their
Portrayals of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics
8(4): 114–120.
Yu YC and Riffe D (1989) Chiang and Mao in US news magazines. Journalism Quarterly 66(4):
913–919.
Zelizer B (2010) About to Die: How News Images Move the Public. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Zhang X and Luther CA (2020) Transnational news media coverage of distant suffering in the
Syrian civil war: An analysis of CNN, Al-Jazeera English and Sputnik online news. Media
War & Conflict 13(4): 399–424.