Media representation of Israel–Iran confrontation in CNN and Tass
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21740718 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Hatef Pourrashidi Alibigloo (0000-0003-2471-6778, University of Religions and Denominations, corresponding author), Javad Alipoor (0000-0001-5527-4509, University of Tabriz) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 267-280 |
| Publication date | 2025-10-02 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Review of Communication (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1535-8593 • E-ISSN: 1535-8593 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/15358593.2025.2540816 |
| OpenAlex | W4414401860 |
| Language | EN |
The rise of media in the political arena has sparked debate among scholars regarding the media-politics relationship. Some argue that certain media outlets operate independently, free from the influence of power centers. Others contend that truly independent media is an illusion and that media often serve as tools for political agendas, especially during critical events like conflicts and wars, where media must align with governmental or organizational policies. This study explores this debate by examining coverage of the Israel-Iran confrontation by two major broadcasters-the American CNN and the Russian news agency TASS-through the lens of news framing theory. All news content from April 1 to April 11, 2024, was analyzed thematically. The findings reveal that TASS frames the conflict with the theme “fish in troubled water,” reflecting Russia's strategy to navigate Middle Eastern developments, while CNN adopts a theme of “full support for Israel against Iran,” consistent with U.S. policy. Distinct linguistic strategies were identified: TASS uses diplomatic language aimed at Eastern audiences, whereas CNN employs emotive rhetoric targeted at Western viewers. This comparative analysis contributes to understanding how state-run and private media frame international conflicts and highlights the complex interplay of media ownership, journalistic culture, and geopolitical interests
| Highly cited | No |
|---|