Framing and Media Bias in Conflict Reporting: A Comparative Analysis of Al Jazeera, CNN, and Global Times During the 2023 Palestine-Israel Conflict

This paper explores the divergent approaches of Al Jazeera, CNN, and Global Times in covering the 2023 Palestine-Israel conflict, with an emphasis on how each outlet’s national alignment and editorial philosophy shape its framing of war and resistance. The study positions media as both a reflector and constructor of geopolitical narratives, using a comparative content analysis of selected coverage during a high-intensity phase of the conflict. This article fits within the broader discourse on media bias, agenda-setting, and the sociology of news, especially in contexts of violent geopolitical confrontation.

The authors begin by contextualising the study within media and conflict studies. Drawing from Goffman’s framing theory and Entman’s conceptualisation of media bias, the paper suggests that how a conflict is narrated has direct consequences on international public opinion and political mobilisation. Al Jazeera, a Qatari-based pan-Arab outlet; CNN, an American commercial media network; and Global Times, a Chinese state-affiliated publication, were selected as representatives of distinct ideological and political ecosystems. The authors note that all three wield soft power in their respective spheres and possess a global audience, making them suitable for comparative analysis.

The methodology employed is a qualitative content analysis of 30 news articles per outlet, chosen between specific high-conflict dates in 2023. The authors developed a coding schema to analyse framing devices: tone, word choice, image usage, thematic focus (humanitarian vs. security), and the presence of value-laden language. Articles were analysed in their original English format (or English editions, in the case of Global Times). The selected timeframe coincides with the early phase of a renewed Israel-Hamas escalation, which generated considerable global media attention. Al Jazeera’s framing prioritised Palestinian civilian suffering and rooted the conflict in broader themes of colonialism and occupation. The paper highlights recurring frames in Al Jazeera such as “siege,” “resistance,” “apartheid,” and “occupation.” The outlet foregrounds human-interest narratives and frequently uses emotionally charged imagery and quotations. Israel’s actions are described using active voice and with a high degree of causal attribution.

The study notes Al Jazeera’s omission of Hamas's actions in many instances, except when addressed as part of a ‘resistance movement,’ which reflects its regional positioning and ideological sympathies. It also identifies Al Jazeera’s strategy of amplifying eyewitness accounts and NGO voices to reinforce legitimacy. CNN’s reporting, in contrast, maintains a framing of symmetrical warfare, often portraying the conflict as an even-sided battle between two state-like actors. Its articles demonstrate a tendency toward bothsidesism, often starting with an Israeli government statement and following with a Palestinian response. The analysis notes CNN's use of terminology like “militants,” “retaliation,” and “ceasefire,” which contributes to an overall war-centric narrative. While civilian casualties are mentioned, they are contextualised within military operations. The outlet tends to cite official government and military sources, aligning with Western journalistic norms of objectivity, though the authors question whether this “balance” obscures deeper asymmetries in power and impact.

Global Times presents a distinct framing altogether, heavily drawing from anti-Western narratives and positioning China as a rational, peace-seeking observer. The articles often critique US support for Israel and use the conflict as an example of Western double standards. Unlike CNN or Al Jazeera, Global Times spends considerable space discussing the geopolitical implications of the conflict on US foreign policy. The tone is didactic and state-aligned, and the language often contains overt editorialising. While human suffering is mentioned, it is frequently employed to criticise American hypocrisy rather than to express solidarity. Notably, Global Times articles often include historical references to prior US military interventions and display skepticism toward international institutions perceived as Western-dominated. The comparative analysis reveals stark contrasts in editorial focus. Al Jazeera humanises the conflict from a predominantly Palestinian perspective, CNN institutionalises it through formal diplomacy and official sources, and Global Times politicises it by framing it within the West vs. Global South binary. Each outlet’s coverage is shaped not only by national interest but by media ownership structure, audience expectations, and soft power strategy.

Al Jazeera and CNN are privately owned (albeit with different degrees of state influence), while Global Times is explicitly state-run. These structural differences manifest in the frequency and tone of certain frames. In terms of visual framing, the authors point out that Al Jazeera often features graphic images of destruction and mourning, which supports its emotive storytelling. CNN utilises images of both military action and diplomacy, offering visual balance that echoes its verbal framing. Global Times typically includes infographics and images of political meetings or demonstrations, reflecting its focus on macro-level analysis. The study suggests that visual elements are not neutral but act as persuasive tools in reinforcing narrative tone. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of media framing for global audiences. In conflict reporting, especially when information warfare is part of the battlefield, the media serves as both interpreter and actor. Citizens, NGOs, and even governments often base their responses and policy positions on how conflict is presented in media. In this context, framing is not just rhetorical — it becomes political.

The authors argue that global readers should develop media literacy skills and recognise bias not as the exception but as a structural condition of journalism. The paper stops short of prescribing reforms, but it encourages cross-media comparison as a strategy for more informed global citizenship. This study contributes to civil society and mobilisation literature by illustrating how narrative frames can activate or pacify audiences. Al Jazeera’s framing may galvanise solidarity movements and protests, CNN’s may promote diplomatic awareness and moderate discourse, while Global Times’ may fuel anti-Western sentiments and reinforce geopolitical bifurcation. Understanding how different outlets construct the same conflict differently enables consumers — and scholars — to assess the motivations and implications behind what appears to be ‘objective’ reporting.

In sum, this article is a timely intervention in media studies and conflict journalism, showcasing how three major global outlets deploy distinct narrative strategies shaped by politics, ownership, and ideology. It provides both empirical insight and theoretical grounding to understand the discursive battlefield that surrounds armed conflict.

Reference: Yavuz, Merve Nur, and Ece Algan. “Çatışma Haberlerinde Çerçeveleme ve Medya Önyargısı: 2023 Filistin-İsrail Çatışması Sırasında Al-Jazeera, CNN ve Global Times’ın Karşılaştırmalı Analizi.” Uluslararası Medya ve İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi, no. 25 (2024): 58–82. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/imcrjournal/issue/84513/1324647.