 Sereina Khalifeh The depiction of conflict within the media is rarely neutral and often subjected to biases. The recent war between Lebanon and Israel provided a first-hand example of the biases in media and the selective reporting that can manipulate the perception of the public discourse. The narrative presented tends to mirror geopolitical alignments, editorial agendas, and societal prejudices. This influences the way the audience analyzes the conflict. This piece will tackle the discrepancies found within media coverage, focusing on the portrayal of events in Lebanon versus those in Israel amidst the war, while critiquing the role of media in escalating polarization and confusion. Unequal weight in reporting mass destruction and human loss
Media bias is the discrepancy in conveying the proper statistics of casualties and destruction on both sides of the conflict. Coverage in international Western outlets highlighted Israeli casualties and physical destruction extensively, framing the war central to the dispute’s narrative while overlooking the other parties’ losses. In Lebanon, the widespread destruction, hundreds of thousands of civilians displaced, and casualties were downplayed and even regulated to secondary headlines. Moreover, the coverage of Lebanon focused on images such as armed groups, neglecting the broader image of human suffering experienced by the population. The bias in coverage creates a disproportionate perception of victimhood and culpability between both parties (Maharat Foundation, 2024). Framing and language disparities Language selection within media reports also presented inherited biases. Terms such as “Retaliation” were often used to describe Israeli military actions, while terms such as “Aggression” or “Attacks” were utilized to frame activity from the Lebanese side. This subtle framing reinforces the idea of moral superiority and justifiable actions from one side of the conflict and delegitimizes the other party’s experience. Similarly, terms such as “Terrorists” for Lebanese actors versus “Soldiers” or “Defense Forces” for Israeli actors strike a concern for the neutrality of these reports and heavily portray one side of the conflict as the abuser while the other as the victim to manipulate people’s perception of the situation. Psychological warfare in the digital battlefield The conflict entered the digital realm, where social media platforms such as X and WhatsApp became key battlegrounds. Both sides used propaganda, misinformation, and cyber warfare tactics such as account hacking. Manipulated videos and AI-generated images reinforced this tactic further. Moreover, fake posts about Hezbollah tunnels and exaggerated military capabilities were heavily circulated, often leveraging the reach of digital platforms (Barazy, 2024). General recommendations for more balanced reporting:
Conclusion The media plays an important role in shaping the public discourse on conflicts, and the coverage of the Lebanon-Israel war highlighted the biases that hinder proper analysis and increase tension. By properly navigating balanced and context-rich reporting, the media can contribute to a more informed and empathetic global discourse. References Barazy, M. (2024). The role of “Online” in the Israel-Lebanon Conflict: A study of accounts and cyber warfare - NowLebanon. Nowlebanon. https://nowlebanon.com/the-role-of-online-in-the-israel-lebanon-conflict-a-study-of-accounts-and-cyber-warfare/ Maharat Foundation. (2024). Challenges of media coverage of Israel’s war on Lebanon. https://maharatfoundation.org/en/ChallengesofMediaCoverageofIsraelsWaronLebanon About the Author Sereina Khalife was an intern in IFI's Communications Unit.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
March 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed
The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy & International Affairs.