Abstract
In October 2023, Hamas, the Palestinian armed group, launched an attack on Israel, resulting in injuries, deaths, and the abduction of civilians. This incident escalated tensions between the parties, ultimately leading to a war. This article explores the immediate coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict by Anadolu Agency News (AA), the state-sponsored media of Turkey, and privately funded Salom Newspaper (SN), which is the oldest Jewish newspaper in Turkey. The authors found that, while AA portrayed the conflict as a continuation of Israel’s Islamophobic policies, SN depicted the events as part of Hamas’ antisemitic attacks. The destroyed hospitals, the tragedy of women and children, life in refugee camps, and airstrikes on Gaza are the focus of AA’s coverage of the humanitarian crisis. The Israeli citizens held captive by Hamas are the focus of SN’s humanitarian crisis dimension. The findings raise the question of how two newspapers can present the same event from completely different frames or perspectives.
Keywords
Introduction
On October 7, 2023, Hamas breached the security barrier between Israel and Gaza, and launched an attack on Israeli territory, targeting mostly civilians (Antonopoulos, 2023). This assault resulted in devastating consequences, including the deaths of approximately 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals, the kidnapping of 210 individuals, and over 5,500 injuries (Koblentz-Stenzler et al., 2023). Hamas referred to the attack as Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, while the Israeli media labeled it Black Saturday and/or Black Shabbat (Yingst, 2024). It was reported as the largest civil disaster to affect the Israeli people since the establishment of the state in 1948 (Hitman, 2024). On the same day, the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, declared war on Hamas and initiated an unprecedented bombardment of Gaza. In the Gaza Strip, Israeli military operations have led to catastrophic humanitarian crises. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (2025) reported that, as the second anniversary of the conflict approaches, more than 61,000 Palestinians have been killed—many of them women and children—and 154,000 have been wounded. Thousands more are trapped under the rubble (Khatib et al., 2024). Almost the entire population of Gaza, estimated by the UN to be 1.5 million Palestinians, has been dislocated and has no safe place to go (Samuel, 2023).
This conflict has been on the agenda of the international media and has attracted widespread attention from day one. In November 2023, approximately one month after the Hamas attack, there were over 11 million posts on Facebook featuring the hashtag #FreePalestine and 282,000 posts with #StandWithIsrael. On Instagram, there were approximately six million posts using #FreePalestine and 230,000 posts with #StandWithIsrael (Statista, 2024). This indicates that the topic was also widely discussed on social media platforms. According to Yingst (2024), at the onset of the war, international media organizations deployed their correspondents to the field to closely monitor developments. They made immediate efforts to connect with their regional representatives in both Gaza and Tel Aviv. As in previous rounds of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2000, 2010, and 2020, a significant portion of the warfare occurs in the media (Chaudhry and Riaz, 2024; Friel and Falk, 2020; Jackson, 2024; Matthews, 2013; Neureiter, 2017). Since the complex humanitarian aspects of this conflict require a sensitive approach, the role of the media is under scrutiny. The ongoing conflict raises challenges related to the flow of information, the framing of the conflict, and the terminology used to define the parties involved.
As a Middle Eastern and Eurasian country, Turkey shares the same region and regional issues with both Palestine and Israel. As the Ottoman Empire ruled the Palestinian territories for four centuries (Krämer, 2008), modern Turkey has deep historical, social, religious, and political ties with the region. While Turkey has advocated for a two-state solution and the representation of the Palestinian Authority on international platforms, it was also the first Muslim country to recognize the state of Israel (Tür, 2012). Turkey maintains strong relations with Israel in the areas of trade and tourism (Oğuzlu, 2010). However, Turkey’s relations with Israel are closely linked to the Palestinian issue, as Turkish governments have consistently shown sympathy towards the Palestinian cause for decades (Öneren-Özbek, 2024). Whenever the Palestinian issue becomes contentious, Turkish governments tend to distance themselves from Israel and adopt a more cautious approach in their foreign policy (Tür, 2012). On the other hand, while Turkey has a predominantly Muslim population, it also boasts a centuries-old Jewish community in its major city, Istanbul. Consequently, the tension and/or war between Israel and Hamas remain the most significant phenomena on Turkey’s political and social agenda.
The purpose of our study is to explore the media representation and narrative of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Turkey, where a large Turkish Muslim population and a dwindling Turkish Jewish community have coexisted for centuries. We achieve this by examining the coverage of the 2023 conflict in Turkey’s main national newspaper and a Jewish newspaper in Turkey. AA is a state-sponsored media outlet in Turkey that serves as a tool of soft power. It is likely to reflect the Turkish government’s conflict strategy as it functions as the official mouthpiece of the government (Akşak, 2020). SN, pronounced Şalom in Turkish, is the only publication in Turkey that has been serving the Turkish Jewish community almost since the establishment of the Turkish Republic (Uzer, 2024). As a dedicated platform for reporting on issues relevant to the Turkish Jewish population, SN gives voice to the hopes and concerns of the community (Brink-Danan, 2012). This research investigates whether an imbalance exists in the representation of the conflict and, if so, to what degree. It also examines how a Jewish minority newspaper in a Muslim-majority country covered the 2023 Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Theoretical framework
Framing theory
Contemporary mass media employs various strategies to engage audiences by propagating, persuading, advertising, or informing through certain frames (Atanesyan, 2020). Media outlets, whether intentionally or unintentionally, adopt and replicate frames from various sources. Frames play a significant role in shaping public opinion about how specific issues should be understood and prioritized. Frames, as schemata of interpretation, enable individuals to perceive, identify, and categorize events and information (Goffman, 1974). The framing of news in today’s media actually attempts to achieve narrative persuasion (D’Angelo, 2019).
Framing has been theorized by several scholars (see Entman, 1993; Goffman, 1974). It refers to the way in which journalists shape news content within a familiar context, guided by an underlying structure of meaning. This process influences the audience that adopts these frames and perceives the world in a manner that reflects the journalists’ perspective (Van Gorp, 2007). According to Entman (1993), news framing is a process that involves selecting and emphasizing certain aspects of a perceived reality to promote a particular problem definition or causal interpretation, making them more or less salient, meaningful, or memorable. This type of analysis can be done to define conflicts, compare various media content, assess the portrayal of particular groups in society, and establish a baseline from which media effects can be studied (Linström and Marais, 2012).
Framing analysis is fundamentally divided into two approaches. The first is an interdisciplinary approach that incorporates psychological and sociological perspectives, while the second is an influence model focused on knowledge construction, public persuasion, and agenda-setting. The primary elements that shape these framings include journalistic norms, political actors, and cultural context (Tewksbury and Sheufele, 2019). Framing an issue is not solely news-oriented; it can also be tailored to the individual reader. A person’s frame of mind significantly influences their evaluation of any issue. For instance, if the prevailing belief is that individuals should have the freedom to express themselves, this may lead to the acceptance of a hate group’s self-expression. In such cases, the individual may assess the situation in terms of public safety, the reduction of inequalities, and the nation’s reputation (Chong and Druckman, 2007). Consequently, it is challenging to delineate the boundaries of framing analysis with absolute precision.
Framing theory has been extensively utilized in recent years, especially in the context of disasters, migration, xenophobia, conflict, and political debates in the international arena (Doufesh and Briel, 2021; Zawawi et al., 2024; Zirugo, 2022). This study is closer to this type of framing analysis. It aims to uncover how media organizations with differing ideologies shape events to persuade their audiences and how they construct their own versions of truth through various forms of framing. It is also likely that various journalists and media outlets either support or criticize different sides in the conflict, or that media biases evolve over time. Hence, ongoing analysis of the matter appears essential to identify potential changes in media bias and to keep the academic debate up to date (Neureiter, 2017).
International and foreign news coverage of political violence, intercultural relations, and war reporting is still predominantly framed from a national perspective (Kasmani, 2014). There is a widespread assumption that media professionals covering a conflict in their own or an allied country tend to be biased. The work of foreign observers who manage to maintain a professional distance is more trustworthy (Kotišová, 2024). This is why the approach of the international media in times of crisis is of crucial importance at the highest level. However, the media sometimes produces destructive reporting that misleads the public about how to understand the conflict (Campbell, 1977). This raised the ethical challenge of whether journalism, as a profession serving the public interest, should prioritize peace in its coverage of conflicts. An attachment to peace implies that the media are taking sides in the conflict they are covering, which may undermine ethical objectivity (Atanesyan, 2020; Bhowmik and Fisher, 2023). The media have recently been tested in this regard in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza and the Rafah crossing in 2023/2024.
Many researchers have used framing analysis to examine media representations of conflict coverage. For instance, Atanesyan (2020) analyzed the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, while Zhang and Luther (2020) examined the framing of the Syrian war from American, Arab, and Russian perspectives. Both studies assert that framing analysis is an effective methodological approach for revealing the diverse narratives associated with humanitarian crises. Han and Rane (2011) examined Australian press coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict through a framing perspective. Elmasry et al. (2013) compared the coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict by Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya during both wartime and peacetime. Bhowmik and Fisher (2023) used textual framing analysis to assess the application of war and peace journalism frames in CNN’s coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict. In all of these studies, framing analysis was utilized to uncover the representations of the conflict across various countries and media channels with differing broadcasting policies.
Based on these studies, this article poses three research questions:
Methodology
The sample
The study analyzed the news coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict by AA, a national and state-sponsored media outlet in Turkey, and SN, which publishes for the Jewish community in Turkey. AA was chosen for three reasons. First, even though it is a Turkey-based media outlet, it has a global coverage, allowing its message to reach a broad audience. The 100-year-old news agency and its newspaper publish in 12 languages from numerous national and 27 foreign bureaus. Secondly, AA has established permanent offices and deployed special correspondents in Gaza (Palestine) and Jerusalem (Israel) to report on the conflict. It provides first-hand news feeds and data to media outlets worldwide. It has become a competitive player in the regional political landscape. Third, Turkey plays a crucial role in shaping Israeli–Palestinian foreign policy. As a state-sponsored soft power media, AA is likely to reflect the Turkish government’s strategy regarding the conflict. Since it operates under the control and supervision of the Presidential Communications Directorate, it adheres to government policy and serves as the official mouthpiece of the government (Akşak, 2020). This study examines how a Turkey-based, state-owned media organization committed to fundamental journalistic values such as accountability, objectivity, and fairness shapes conflict narratives for a global audience and influences perceptions of international conflicts.
SN was chosen for two primary reasons. First, it is the only newspaper in Turkey that has been publishing for the Turkish Jewish community for over 80 years. While other Jewish newspapers have existed in Turkey in the past, Salom has emerged as the oldest surviving Jewish publication in the country (Uzer, 2024). Consequently, it serves as a vital source of information for Jews in Turkey and acts as a voice for the community. It is instrumental in narrating and illustrating the perspectives of Turkish Jews on socio-political issues. SN addresses the political dynamics of Israel and the broader Middle East (Brink-Danan, 2012). Second, it provides an opportunity to compare the journalism of Turkey’s most prominent newspaper with that of a community paper related to a party involved in the conflict.
Timeline
The researchers collected the daily news bulletins from October 7, 2023, to November 25, 2023, totaling 1,564 news articles; 1,476 of the news items were collected from online databases of AA, and 88 were from the SN. This time period is crucial because the Israeli–Palestinian conflict/war of 2023 started on October 7, and, on November 21, leaders of Israel and Palestine, with the assistance of other countries including Turkey, agreed to a ceasefire. Thus, the study restricted the time frame of the news articles to within 50 days. Due to the ceasefire on the 50th day of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, news flow was interrupted for the first time since the conflict began, and no conflict-related content was published on that day. The 50th day is, therefore, the first breaking point of war journalism. Crises are most newsworthy at the onset of the crisis. This period of coverage provides us with real-time insight into AA’s and SN’s approach to reporting on this conflict.
Data collection
The analysis focused on the textual content of AA and SN, obtained from their respective websites. The articles analyzed in this study were published in Turkish. No translation was necessary as Turkish is the authors’ native language. The researchers included large keyword sets in order to maximize search results. The keywords used to search for relevant articles are: Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Hamas, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, Al-Qassam Brigades, Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas, West Bank, Jerusalem, Palestinian refugee, Rafah Border, humanitarian, and ceasefire. The researchers utilized each keyword to retrieve relevant articles, and each news article was carefully examined to assess its relevance. News directly related to the topic was included. For example, articles related to sporting and cultural events were deemed irrelevant and subsequently eliminated. Some news pages consist only of infographics, podcasts, or videos, and do not contain any text. Such news was excluded.
Coding procedure
In the literature to date, several frames have been identified that frequently appear in the news. Generic news frames reflect broad journalistic values and can be applied to a wide range of news topics. In cross-national comparative studies, generic frames allow scholars to examine news framing practices in different contexts (Cho and Wang, 2021; De Vreese, 2005). In this study, we chose to follow Semetko and Valkenburg (2000), who identified five generic news frames in order of predominance: morality, conflict, economic, human interest, and attribution of responsibility. However, in addition to these frames, two other frames are categorized as states and international organizations. During the preliminary evaluation of the dataset prior to coding, it was observed that these two frames were prominent in both newspapers. In addition, since the content of the news mainly focuses on the humanitarian aspects and consequences of the conflict, the articles were categorized into nine distinct themes, such as fatality data, health, malnutrition, food insecurity, shelter, campaigns, and solidarity.
The morality frame contains moral messages, desirable social behavior, religious tenets, or social prescriptions. The conflict frame reflects multiple sides of an issue and controversies between individuals, groups, institutions, or countries in news stories. This frame is particularly useful when analyzing foreign media outlets. The economic consequences frame refers to financial losses or gains for individuals, organizations or countries. The human-interest frame focuses on individuals in an emotional way. This frame presents people’s concerns in a manner that evokes sympathy in the reader. Human interest stories are a type of soft news. The responsibility frame assigns responsibility to political actors, individuals, or international organizations for solving or causing problems and encourages urgent action (Cho and Wang, 2021; Liu, 2024; Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000).
This study adopts news framing analysis to assess the frames of AA and SN. The authors conducted a detailed examination of the textual messages as a close and critical analysis conducted on a shot-by-shot basis can reveal both subtle and covert messages. This study adopts integrated elaboration design. Qualitative and quantitative analyses are combined within one single research process (Srnka and Koeszegi, 2007). To achieve this, the researchers transformed the qualitative material into themes and codes, which were then converted into quantitative values.
This study follows the approach of Pan and Kosicki (1993), which examines news texts in the following ways: (a) it views news texts as organized symbolic structures that interact with individual agents’ memories to construct meaning; (b) it recognizes that framing analysis goes beyond a content-free structuralist perspective on news discourse. Instead, it embraces the assumption of the rule-governed nature of text formation and a multidimensional conception of news texts, which enhances cognitive processing during news consumption; and (c) media framing closely examines political language and discourse.
The unit of analysis was an individual article. The data were transferred to an Excel file and organized. The entire dataset was then analyzed and visualized using MAXQDA software. All articles were analyzed independently by each coder who is well-trained and experienced (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Coders independently coded 30 percent of the total sample to test inter-coder reliability. The sample data was tested, and achieved an average of 0.873 in Scott’s Pi (Allen, 2017: 741–742). The validity of framing analysis does not depend on researchers’ subjective interpretations of news articles. Instead, it is based on systematic procedures for collecting data from news texts to identify the signifying elements that might be used by the audience (Pan and Kosicki, 1993).
Findings
RQ1: How is the use of terminology framed in news reporting on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides?
News terminology
Within a period of 50 days, there was a clear change in the news discourse of AA. Specifically, between October 7 and 13, the news highlighted the diplomatic initiatives of Turkish state officials and the calls for restraint by other nations. Due to Turkey’s efforts to act as a mediator for the resolution of the conflict, the statements made by state officials during this period did not directly target any side. AA’s reporting during this period did not use any notable terminology for either party. However, after October 13, the conflict escalated due to Israel’s airstrikes and military operations in the Gaza Strip. AA’s news coverage after this date includes content that blames Israel, not Hamas, for turning the conflict into a war.
The Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a statement on October 7, 2023, regarding the attacks launched by Hamas against Israel: AA: We strongly condemn the loss of civilian lives. We emphasize that acts of violence and related escalations will not benefit anyone. We call on the parties to act with restraint and refrain from impulsive actions.
Statement by the government spokesperson regarding the bombing of a hospital in Gaza on October 18, 2023: AA: We condemn this deliberate massacre perpetrated by Israel. This act represents one of the greatest atrocities in human history. They still say that Israel has the right to self-defense. However, does Israel’s right to self-defense extend to the destruction of Palestinian civilian lives?
AA referred to Hamas as freedom fighters, a Palestinian resistance movement, and a political organization that should be incorporated into the negotiation process. Occupied Territories and/or Occupied Palestinian Territories was always used to refer to the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. A typical Palestinian life in the Occupied Territories is characterized by humiliation stemming from verbal and physical aggression by pro-Israelis or Israeli soldiers at checkpoints. Settlers were preferred over Israelis in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, while forcible displacement was used for Palestinians, and invasion and blockade were used for Gaza City. Israel’s actions portray a reason for the radicalization of the region and the dehumanization of Palestinians. AA portrayed the Israeli military as lawless occupying forces, characterizing their operations as a form of state terror and collective punishment against the Palestinian people. Quoting Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan, it stated, “It is a moral obligation to stand against the state terror practiced by Israel.” AA recognizes the October 7 attacks as a provoked action: “Israel’s oppressive and dispossessive policies, along with its occupation of the West Bank, provide crucial context for Hamas’ attacks.”
SN preferred the terms Islamic Jihad group, terrorist organization, militant group, fundamentalists, aggressor and provocateur for Hamas. Israeli military operations in Gaza were framed as efforts to dismantle Hamas’ underground tunnels and neutralize the militants responsible for the attacks and rocket launches. The newspaper makes a clear distinction between Hamas and the Palestinian people, framing the conflict as a struggle between Israel and Hamas, rather than against the Palestinian population in Gaza. In contrast to the AA, the actions of Hamas were cited as the initiators of the conflict. Israel’s right to defend itself against the terrorist actions of Hamas was explicitly emphasized.
SN: On October 7, hundreds of Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israel’s borders and launched simultaneous attacks alongside a rocket assault, marking a declaration of war in the Middle East.
SN appears to prefer avoiding terminology that could create dilemmas or carry political connotations. Phrases such as barrier, occupied, invaded, occupied territory, 1967 borders and Israeli settlers were not found in the news texts. Although the news primarily focused on the situation of Israeli prisoners, including the reactions of their families and statements from Israeli officials, it also highlighted the suffering of Gazan civilians. The news included information about humanitarian aid to Gaza, the plight of refugees, and the international community’s reactions to the bombings of hospitals and UN camps.
SN: The Gaza Ministry of Health reported that the Israeli airstrike on Tuesday evening resulted in the deaths of hundreds of individuals at the hospital.
News framing of 2023 Israeli–Palestinian conflict
RQ2: Which frames have been dominantly adopted by AA and SN when making sense of the 2023 Israeli–Palestinian conflict over time?
We continued our analysis by examining the presence of generic news frames and summarized the results in Table 1.
News framing of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict according to coding rate.
Morality frame
A notable contrast was identified within the frame of morality. AA portrayed the conflict as a continuation of Israel’s anti-Islamic policies in the Middle East. In contrast, SN depicted the events that began in October 2023 as part of Hamas’ antisemitic actions. Furthermore, some news stories highlighted connections or similarities between the Hamas attack, known as Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, the treatment of hostages, and the Holocaust. Both papers referenced international law and the role of the International Criminal Court in this conflict. AA—particularly through the statements of prominent conservative politicians in Turkish politics, such as Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Numan Kurtulmuş, as well as international figures like Josep Borrell and Ursula von der Leyen—assert that Israel has violated international law or should adhere to it. In contrast, SN informs its readers that Israel initiated this war by invoking the right to self-defense under international law. This divergence is also evident in other subcategories. It can be argued that state policies play a decisive role in the moral legitimization reflected in the newspapers’ differing perspectives. Articles in AA criticized the biased and discriminatory approach of the Western media towards Palestinians and Muslims. However, no articles in SN criticized the media for discriminating against any side.
Conflict frame
Both newspapers characterized the incident as a brutal conflict rather than merely a military operation or a diplomatic dispute. However, unlike previous Hamas–Israel conflicts, this conflict was defined as one that would be long-lasting and would profoundly impact the countries in the region. AA covered the developments promptly, inundating readers with news and, on some days, publishing nearly 80 articles in a single day. In contrast, SN reported on the conflict daily but did so less frequently and focused more on political news. The representations of war, attack, defense, and terrorism were fundamentally opposed to one another. Both newspapers attempted to justify the parties involved in the incident by articulating similar concepts in divergent ways. Unlike SN, AA presented Hamas and related developments to its readers not only by utilizing sources from the domestic public but also by incorporating statements from academics, international organizations, and other notable figures. By increasing the diversity of sources (Hansen, 1991), AA aimed to enhance the persuasiveness and narrative quality of the news (Matthews, 2013: 306) during the editorial process.
Economic consequences frame
There was no significant difference in content or discourse between the two news outlets. AA’s economic news was more comprehensive due to the higher number of news articles. It addressed the impact of the war on inflation, the rise in fuel prices, the increase in global food prices, the decline in stock markets in various countries, and the potential impact on the Fed’s interest rate decision. On the other hand, SN limited its coverage to the starvation of civilians in Gaza and the rise in global fuel prices, placing greater emphasis on the moral dimensions of the conflict rather than its economic aspects. SN did not report on a global boycott movement against Israeli brands and products, a topic covered exclusively by AA, which provided detailed information on the brands being boycotted. The news regarding the boycott is rooted in the belief that individual initiatives can contribute to changing the current situation. AA has sought to keep the issue of boycotts at the forefront of domestic public discourse by reporting on calls for boycotts directed at companies founded by Jewish entrepreneurs.
Human interest frame
Humanitarianism has been utilized to shape the conflict agenda of AA, while SN used fewer human rights frames. AA’s coverage of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza focused on the destruction of hospitals, the collapse of the healthcare system, the plight of women and children, life in refugee camps, the phosphorus bombs dropped on the city, airstrikes on Gaza, and the daily death toll. In contrast, SN focused on the Israeli citizens held captive by Hamas, highlighting images of the hostages and the emotional turmoil experienced by their families. AA also reported on the exchange of Israeli hostages and their circumstances, often featuring photographs of the hostages’ families and videos of demonstrations urging the government to organize a prisoner–hostage swap. Both newspapers reported on the famine in Gaza, which was exacerbated by the closure of the Rafah border crossing, as well as the conditions in UN refugee camps. However, while AA’s photographs and videos are powerful and dramatic—often depicting individuals who are injured or dying—SN refrains from including any dramatic imagery of the people in Gaza. The main purpose of human-interest framing is to enhance public awareness of specific issues. Nevertheless, both newspapers presented the news through popular political discourses rather than genuinely promoting public awareness. It can be argued that the prevailing political contexts influenced the editorial process.
Attribution of responsibility frame
SN identified Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the people of Gaza, and Hamas as the main parties to the conflict. As an external actor in the process, SN reported the statements made by the leaders of the US, Iran, and Turkey, along with their foreign ministers. However, it devoted minimal attention to the roles of Egypt, Qatar, and other countries. There was limited coverage of official statements or decisions issued by the UN and other international organizations. The AA viewed the state of Israel as solely responsible for the conflict, citing violation of the 1967 borders, Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, and the displacement of Palestinians due to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. In particular, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was portrayed as benefiting from the ongoing conflict. Protests organized by Israeli citizens demanding the government’s resignation have been noted, contributing to a discourse that criticizes Netanyahu within his own country. The prevailing narrative in AA’s reporting suggests that Hamas and the people of Gaza are victims rather than perpetrators of the conflict, attributing this victimhood to Israeli aggression and making little distinction between Hamas members and the general population of Gaza. The AA emphasized that Israel’s actions resemble those of a terrorist organization rather than reflecting the responsibilities of a sovereign state. While AA was more explicit in attributing responsibility, SN conveyed this message more implicitly.
Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, and Jordan are depicted as mediators in the region, while the US, Germany, and the UK are portrayed as entities safeguarding Israel’s interests. Turkey’s efforts to address the situation through meetings with various heads of state have received significant media attention. The UN meetings and press releases from Secretary-General Guterres have received extensive coverage, as the UN is recognized as the primary organization responsible for conflict resolution. Furthermore, the World Health Organization has been referenced in response to attacks on healthcare workers and the destruction of hospitals in Gaza.
A two-case model for humanitarian issues
RQ3: To what extent did the two news media outlets effectively convey the humanitarian issues associated with war between Israel and Hamas through their framing of the news?
The two-case model is a MAXQDA analysis used to highlight the similarities and differences between all news items from the two coded newspapers.
According to Figure 1, none of AA’s 1476 articles mentioned any issue related to anti-Semitism or hate speech towards Jews. In SN, however, both the actions of Hamas and the protests in support of Palestine taking place around the world at the time were reported as anti-Semitic actions. On the other hand, in the discourse of AA, the global protests were presented as anti-war protests. In both papers, the majority of the content was related to Israel’s policies, military operations, President Netanyahu’s speeches, the situation of Israeli prisoners, and negotiations between various states, and Israel made up the bulk of the news. While news about Israel was based on official Israeli sources, information about civilians in Gaza was primarily derived from the accounts and observations of war correspondents in the region.
Two-case model of AA and SN.
According to Table 2, both newspapers addressed the humanitarian aspects of conflicts, focusing on the victimization of entirely different parties involved. The news content from both newspapers indicates that the conflicts resulted in loss of life and property on both sides. However, it is evident that the Palestinian side has been significantly and adversely affected from the very beginning of the war, particularly regarding fundamental human rights such as safety, shelter, access to clean water, health services, and food. The coverage of humanitarian issues of AA was based on official statements from institutions such as the Palestinian Ministry of Health, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the World Health Organization, the Red Crescent, the United Nations, and UNICEF, with these statements being directly quoted. However, SN excludes any significant role for the UN or any meaningful discussion of international law.
A summary of the humanitarian issues reported in the news.
Discussion and conclusion
The comparative approach used in this study enabled the researchers to identify both similarities and differences in the coverage of the conflict between Israel and Hamas by a Turkish national news source and a Turkish Jewish community source. This research aims to address three key questions.
Regarding RQ1, both newspapers have a responsibility to remain impartial and report in ways that enable their audiences to form their own assessments. Because the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is a complex issue, newspapers need to be sensitive in their use of precise and accurate terminology. However, it has been observed that the AA tends to align closely with the language preferred by the Palestinian side. Using acceptable generic (neutral) descriptions instead of terms favored by one side is essential. Phrases could be utilized in accordance with international law and the guidelines of the UN. For instance, East Jerusalem is considered an occupied territory under international law, yet it is not recognized as the capital of the Palestinian territories. The insensitive use of language could undermine the publication’s credibility. Conversely, SN’s avoidance of binary terms may stem from its status as a minority newspaper. Given that Turkish public opinion is predominantly pro-Palestinian in this conflict, SN may have sought to avoid provoking its readership.
Referring to Hamas as either freedom fighters or an Islamic terrorist organization is a clear ideological orientation. The choice of terminology serves as a significant and powerful underlying framework. SN marginalizes Hamas’ actions while emphasizing Israel’s right to defend itself against the terrorist activities. In contrast, the AA, by using the term ‘state terrorism’, associates Israel with extremism and portrays Hamas’ armed actions as reasonable and justifiable. SN made headlines by linking civilians captured by Hamas to terrorism while neglecting to mention the land annexations that have occurred over the years. Zawawi et al. (2024) conducted a study of BBC coverage of Hamas’ attacks on Israel and found that the BBC portrayed Hamas’ actions as a sudden act of terrorism, without mentioning the wrongful actions committed by Israel throughout the historical process. Henarni and Surwandono (2024) analyzed how Hamas is portrayed in Western and Middle Eastern media. They found that, while Western outlets typically associated Hamas with extremism and violence, Middle Eastern media framed the organization within themes of resistance and heroism. The results of this study are consistent with those of Zawawi et al. (2024) and Henarni and Surwandono (2024). When addressing multidimensional issues such as terrorism, it is essential to construct a comprehensive context. Reporting on terrorist incidents from a narrow and one-sided perspective can lead to the intentional or unintentional advocacy of a particular side/viewpoint.
The evolution of the terminology used by AA over a period of 50 days, in response to Turkish foreign policy positions and statements, suggests that the newspaper was acting as a mouthpiece for the government. However, there was no change in the terminology of the SN throughout the process, and consistency was observed. As a newspaper representing the Jewish minority community, SN’s journalistic activities in a Muslim-majority country on a highly sensitive issue are invaluable. Furthermore, its divergence from mainstream media and Turkish foreign policy is significant for press freedom, freedom of expression, and diversity within Turkey’s media ecosystem, regardless of the content of the news.
Regarding RQ2, this study uncovered the predominant news frames presented by AA and SN online sites in their coverage of conflict. In AA’s articles, the frames of responsibility, conflict, and human interest are prominently featured. The coverage highlights the war’s impact on civilians—particularly women, children, and the elderly—along with the inadequacies of the healthcare system, the refugee status of the local population in Gaza, and the challenges faced at the border crossings. While Israel and Hamas are identified as the primary parties to the conflict, Binyamin Netanyahu’s policies as Prime Minister of Israel are presented in the context of violations of international law. In addition to Turkey, the diplomatic initiatives of the US, Russia, and China, as well as Egypt and Qatar as regional powers, are also given extensive coverage. On the other hand, the economic consequences and morality frames were less prominent. This distribution of frames can be attributed to the established practices of war narratives and the specific emphasis on humanitarian issues in the Gaza Strip.
AA’s news content compared the military capabilities of both sides, highlighting that one side possessed an army equipped with chemical weapons, while the other side lacked military equipment and consisted mainly of civilians. In this context, it was argued that the state of war was not being experienced on equal terms. One of the key points emphasized in AA’s reporting was Israel’s alleged use of white phosphorus as a chemical weapon, a claim supported by findings from Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW). The claim that Israel committed a war crime was bolstered by quotes from independentsources.
With regard to RQ3, news audiences understand and interpret human suffering through media representations. For this reason, media discourse significantly influences how suffering is constructed and perceived, especially in foreign news (Zhang and Luther, 2020). The study found that war-related humanitarian issues receive as much media attention as warfare, acts of violence, and military operations. Humanitarian stories were not overshadowed by leading conflict narratives in the news. Both media outlets featured articles that delved into the personal stories of suffering, including poignant quotes from individuals and vivid descriptions of their experiences during wartime turmoil. The news articles used episodic framing that emphasized the suffering of local residents and children, utilizing detailed and emotionally charged language to highlight the powerlessness, fear, and frustration experienced by these individuals.
Victimhood was a central theme in both papers. While antisemitism is highlighted in SN, Islamophobia is portrayed as its direct counterpart in AA. The SN highlights the prolonged and painful experiences of Israelis who have been subjected to rocket fire and assaults from Hamas. However, the SN also recognizes, in some news articles, the tragic circumstances faced by Palestinian civilians. SN news stories emphasize that the conflict is directed against Hamas, not the Palestinian people. Consequently, the resulting deaths and destruction, while tragic, are viewed as the costs of combating terrorism. Hamas is held accountable for civilian casualties because the group carried out the October 7 attack, which has resulted in devastation in the Gaza Strip. Both newspapers dramatize the issue. In SN, the families of the prisoners are depicted as dramatic elements, while AA dramatizes the deaths of children and women, as well as the attacks on hospitals. These findings support the notion that conflict news is often presented in a dramatic manner, as suggested by Westerståhl and Johansson (1994) in their study on foreign news.
The authors also examine the ethical standards of journalism, focusing on accuracy and impartiality. The findings suggest that, while AA and SN include statements from authorities on both sides, they do not provide readers with both sides of the story in a balanced way. AA’s news narratives are influenced by Turkish foreign policy, whereas SN’s approach relies primarily on information from Israeli sources. Both newspapers operate within the context of their respective readerships and the ideological positions of the states. This attitude of news organizations is inconsistent with the principles of professional journalism. Additionally, the study revealed that the categories identified in the framing analysis can vary from one event to another. International organizations and states that had not been included in previous framing analyses emerged prominently in this research. International disasters, particularly wars, can give rise to new sub-framings. Therefore, it is important to recognize that the unique characteristics of each case may introduce new subcategories into the framing analysis.
As Wolfsfeld (2022) points out, every political story that appears in any form of media is somewhat biased. True objectivity is unattainable due to cultural and partisan biases. However, even if pure objectivity cannot be achieved, clearly taking sides damages the media’s credibility and contradicts its raison d’être. In news narratives during armed conflicts, the objectivity and impartiality of the media play a crucial role in determining whether the press adheres to its fundamental principles. In these situations, even when one side is ideologically aligned with the enemy or monster archetype (Campbell, 1977), these archetypes—particularly those articulated by journalists—are instrumental in shaping public opinion.
Even in a democratic country, media bias in wartime journalism can exhibit reactions similar to those found in autocratic regimes (Gehlbach and Sonin, 2014). At first glance, it appears that a comparable situation exists in this case. However, it is noteworthy that, in Turkey, where the media is becoming increasingly standardized and is not considered particularly democratic by western standards, there is a media outlet that represents a different ideology and nation. In this Muslim-majority country, where significant antipathy towards Jews and Israel exists, it is essential for a Jewish newspaper to have the freedom to shape its own internal public opinion. This is important not only for press freedom in Turkey but also for ensuring that dissenting voices are heard in the media. Considering that Turkey ranks approximately 150th out of 180 countries evaluated in the World Press Freedom Index (Wolfsfeld, 2022), the presence of a media outlet capable of articulating opposing viewpoints—even if it is a faint voice—constitutes a significant subject of scholarly inquiry. The existence of such alternative voices is particularly noteworthy in restrictive media environments as they provide critical spaces for dissent and pluralism, thereby warranting systematic research and academic attention.
While journalism is practiced with a free and impartial media approach in democratic countries, less democratic nations often exhibit an unfree and biased news environment. In democratic societies, the press serves the purpose of conveying news and informing the public; conversely, in authoritarian regimes, the press is often utilized for propaganda and shaping societal perceptions (Oates, 2021). It can be argued that “minority media” within press organizations in Turkey possesses a more robust and autonomous structure, particularly given the relatively restrictive media–government relations in the country, which is considered less democratic (Esen and Gumuscu, 2021).
Wolfsfeld’s (1997, 2022) PMP model (Politics – Media – Politics) argues that the interaction between politics and the media is not one-directional (as in “media influence politics” or “politics control media”), but rather cyclical—politics influences media coverage, and that coverage in turn shapes political processes and outcomes. When applied to AA and SN, the findings indicate a strong alignment between political authority and journalistic framing.
According to Wolfsfeld (1997, 2022), the political environment exerts a decisive influence on how conflicts are portrayed in the media (Politics). In the case of AA, the alignment with the Turkish government’s foreign policy priorities—particularly under President Erdoğan’s administration—plays a central role in shaping news narratives. The Turkish government has consistently taken a clear political stance in favor of the Palestinian cause and has actively criticized Israeli military operations (Öneren-Özbek, 2024). As a state-run media institution, AA tends to reproduce and reinforce these official positions. Political leaders’ speeches, official statements, and diplomatic initiatives frequently serve as primary sources in AA’s reporting, guiding the agenda and framing the tone of coverage. Thus, the government’s political priorities define the boundaries within which AA interprets and presents the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In contrast, SN does not maintain a direct institutional connection to political power, unlike AA, which is aligned with the state.
The second component of Wolfsfeld’s model emphasizes that the media are not passive transmitters of political messages; instead, they exercise agency through their news-gathering capabilities, professional norms, and real-time reporting practices (Media). In the context of AA’s coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, its extensive field presence and direct access to conflict zones significantly shape the dynamics of the media stage. AA’s correspondents and reporters stationed in Israel and Gaza provide a continuous flow of immediate, on-the-ground information. This real-time reporting capability strengthens the agency’s role within the media–politics interaction described by Wolfsfeld. AA holds informational power by being among the first to capture breaking events, civilian casualties, diplomatic developments, and humanitarian conditions. This capacity for primary data collection gives AA a strategic advantage, allowing it to shape not only public narratives but also governmental responses. Wolfsfeld emphasizes that media outlets balance political pressures with their own professional logic and organizational identity. SN’s media logic differs significantly from that of AA as it combines professional neutrality with identity-driven framing, leading to subtle but notable differences in emphasis compared with state-aligned media.
The third component of Wolfsfeld’s model concerns public expectations (Politics), cultural narratives, and collective identities that shape how conflict news is received and reproduced. AA’s framing interacts with these public sentiments in two major ways: it reinforces pre-existing public narratives that view Palestine as a symbol of Muslim victimhood and justice, and it legitimizes the government’s diplomatic activism by portraying Turkey as a defender of humanitarian values and regional stability. Thus, public attitudes and cultural narratives do not challenge AA’s coverage; rather, they strengthen and validate the agency’s pro-government framing. SN’s readership is small, homogeneous, and primarily composed of individuals from Turkey’s Jewish community. This leads to audience expectations for safety and discretion, discouraging provocative or polarizing coverage. In contrast to AA’s overt alignment with Turkish government narratives, SN demonstrates a more delicate balance of neutrality, community identity, and political sensitivity, consistent with Wolfsfeld’s argument that media behavior emerges from the interaction of political, media, and public forces.
There are several limitations to this study. First, the timeframe is limited to the first 50 days of the 2023 round of the conflict. Future empirical studies could extend the duration of media coverage, and compare timelines and issue developments to understand framing processes better. Secondly, focusing on only two newspapers is another limitation. Since AA is a state-run newspaper, its news frequency is significantly higher. However, the number of news articles in SN remains relatively minor compared to those of AA. One of the reasons for this situation is SN’s attempt to maintain a delicate balance to prevent any negative reactions due to the solid pro-Palestine sentiment and anti-Israel stance prevalent in Turkish society. Future studies should consider including newspapers with varying ideologies within Turkey to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. Beyond the written press, new research could explore other forms of mass media, particularly television. In order to understand the public discourse surrounding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and its manifestation on social media, future studies could collect data from popular social media platforms. The user-generated content, diversity, and active participation on these platforms offer valuable insights into public opinion and discourse. In addition to framing analyses, diverse academic methodologies could be employed, and in-depth interviews with journalists conducted.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-mwc-10.1177_17506352251411885 – Supplemental material for Media and narrative: News framing of the 2023 round of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-mwc-10.1177_17506352251411885 for Media and narrative: News framing of the 2023 round of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict by Esra Tani-Yildiz and Mehmet Sinan Tam in Media, War & Conflict
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to three anonymous reviewers for their comments on early versions of the article.
Ethical considerations
There are no human participants in this article and informed consent is not required.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Tani-Yildiz, upon reasonable request.
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Author biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
