Media Framing of U.S. University and Student Responses to the Israel-Hamas War
Author
Masarikova, Anna
Term
4. semester
Education
Publication year
2024
Abstract
Israel‑Hamas‑krigen brød en periode med relativ ro i Mellemøsten og genantændte langvarige politiske spændinger. Den skabte også global debat og protester, herunder aktivisme på amerikanske universiteter, samtidig med en alvorlig humanitær krise i Gaza. Dette speciale undersøger, hvordan nyhedsmedier portrætterede universiteters og studentergruppers reaktioner i krigens begyndelse. Det sammenligner brede amerikanske medier (CNN, The New York Times, Newsweek, FOX News og New York Post) med universitetsaviser (The Harvard Crimson, The Daily Pennsylvanian og Columbia Daily Spectator). Studiet bygger på dagsordenssættelse—ideen om, at medier påvirker, hvad offentligheden opfatter som vigtigt, ved at fremhæve bestemte emner—og rammesætning, dvs. hvordan historier fortælles og hvilke vinkler der bruges. Med en kvalitativ rammeanalyse identificeres tre typer rammer: diagnostiske rammer (hvad problemet er, og hvem der tilskrives ansvar), prognostiske rammer (hvad der bør gøres), og motiverende rammer (hvorfor man bør handle). Analysen viser, at dækningen af studerende og universiteter varierer på tværs af medier. Venstreorienterede og højreorienterede medier lægger vægt på forskellige aspekter og udviser forudindtagethed, mens universitetsaviser giver beretninger forankret i campusoplevelser. Samlet set fremhæver studiet, at medier former den offentlige samtale og opfattelser under globale konflikter, og det understreger behovet for kritisk mediekompetence til at navigere mellem forskellige fortællinger.
The Israel‑Hamas war ended a period of relative calm in the Middle East and reignited long‑standing political tensions. It also sparked global debate and protests, including activism on U.S. college campuses, amid a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This thesis examines how news organizations portrayed university and student group responses in the early days of the war. It compares mainstream U.S. outlets (CNN, the New York Times, Newsweek, FOX News, and the New York Post) with campus newspapers (the Harvard Crimson, the Daily Pennsylvanian, and the Columbia Daily Spectator). The study draws on agenda‑setting—the idea that media influence what the public considers important by highlighting certain issues—and on framing, meaning how stories are told and which angles are emphasized. Using qualitative frame analysis, it looks for three kinds of frames: diagnostic frames (what the problem is and who is responsible), prognostic frames (what should be done), and motivational frames (why people should act). The analysis finds that coverage of students and universities differs across outlets. Left‑leaning and right‑leaning media emphasize different aspects and show biases, while campus papers offer accounts grounded in on‑campus experiences. Overall, the study highlights how media shape public conversation and perceptions during global conflicts and underscores the need for critical media literacy to navigate competing narratives.
[This summary has been rewritten with the help of AI based on the project's original abstract]
Keywords
Documents