Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Beyond the Battlefield: Framing Analysis of Media Coverage in Conflict Reporting

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper finds that English-language coverage of the Israel-Palestine war leans systematically toward war journalism over peace journalism, and that US, UK, and Middle Eastern outlets assign the roles of assailant and victim to…

desk verdict An ambitious LLM operationalization of Galtung's war/peace journalism that is transparent and useful but lacks the validation needed to back its central claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10421 v1 pith:XUDMDX4C submitted 2025-06-12 cs.CL

Avneet Kaur , Arnav Arora This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords warjournalismpeacemediaframingIsrael-PalestineconflictlargelanguagemodelFrameNetsemanticbias
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that, during the first months of the Israel-Palestine war, English-language news coverage was systematically more war-oriented than peace-oriented, and that US, UK, and Middle Eastern outlets systematically assigned the roles of assailant and victim to different parties. To make that case, the authors turn Galtung's war-versus-peace journalism framework, a set of indicators distinguishing conflict-focused from solution-focused reporting, into computational labels, using a large language model to flag adversarial, demonizing, and victimizing language, and FrameNet-based semantic parsing to find frames like "Attack" and "Killing." Applying this to roughly 22,000 articles (with a 9,000-article LLM sample) from October 2023 to February 2024, they report that war indicators outnumber peace indicators everywhere, and that Middle Eastern outlets more often depict Palestinians as victims and Israel as assailant, while US and UK outlets more often depict Hamas as assailant and Israeli citizens and hostages as victims. If the measurement is right, the paper matters because it quantifies media bias in a live conflict and shows the bias is not uniform across regions.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the operationalization of Galtung's war-versus-peace journalism framework into two computational instruments. The first is a prompt-driven large language model (Command-R) that reads each article and returns, per Galtung indicator, exact excerpts, the target group of the language (e.g., "Hamas," "Israelis," "Palestinians"), and a reasoning; the paper reports a qualitative check that outputs are faithful. The second is FrameNet-based semantic parsing via the Frame Semantic Transformer, which identifies semantic frames such as "Attack," "Killing," and "Hostile_Encounter" and their frame elements "Assailant" and "Victim." A third, supporting piece is the generic-frame classifier (an instruction-tuned Mistral-7b) evaluated on the Media Frames Corpus, which shows moderate multi-label performance (macro F1 0.45) and is used only for the high-level framing comparison.

What would settle it

Re-label a stratified random sample of several hundred articles from each region with human coders trained on Galtung's indicators, blind to the source region, and compare the regional distributions of assailant and victim assignments; if human labels do not reproduce the paper's regional asymmetry, or if a different LLM with a neutral prompt reverses it, the central claim would be an artifact of the model rather than of the coverage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a set of measurable asymmetries. Across all regions, normalized frequencies of war-journalism indicators (adversarial framing, demonizing language, focus on visible destruction, elite orientation) exceed peace-journalism indicators (solution focus, invisible effects, diverse perspectives, people orientation). Within the data, semantic frames of visible war effects, such as "Attack," "Killing," and "Hostile_Encounter," are dominant; invisible effects such as "Fear" and "Kinship" appear but much less often. The headline finding is the role asymmetry: frame-element counts for "Assailant" and "Victim" inside the "Attack" and "Killing" frames differ by region. In US and UK coverage, "Hamas"-associated terms fall into the assailant role far more often than "Israel"-associated terms, while in Middle Eastern coverage the reverse holds; victimhood is assigned to Palestinians and Gazans more in Middle Eastern sources and to Israeli citizens and hostages more in Western ones. The authors present these results as evidence of regional editorial bias in conflict framing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the large language model's judgments about which excerpts count as demonizing, who the target is, and who the assailant is, are faithful to the articles and equally accurate for all three regions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is correct, readers of English-language coverage of the Israel-Palestine war are routinely exposed to more conflict-oriented than solution-oriented framing, which prior work links to polarization and reduced support for peace.
  • The regional asymmetry in assailant/victim framing implies that the same event can be narrated with opposite blame assignments depending on the outlet's home market; this makes cross-regional comparison of conflict coverage essential for any claim of media objectivity.
  • Because visible effects dominate invisible effects in all three regions, efforts to encourage peace journalism would need to push toward trauma, kinship, and long-term consequence reporting rather than only casualty counts.
  • The paper's operationalization of Galtung's indicators gives conflict researchers a scalable, reproducible measurement tool for future wars, for which only the LLM and the prompt are needed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The regional differences the paper reports could partly come from the LLM's own training-data associations rather than from editorial choices; testing with a prompt that does not mention "Hamas" or "Israel" by name would separate the two.
  • An immediate extension is to apply the same pipeline to domestic Israeli and Palestinian outlets; the paper deliberately excludes them, so the "regional" comparison is really among external observers, and domestic coverage may show even stronger or different role assignment.
  • The finding that US and UK outlets emphasize politics and public opinion while Middle Eastern outlets emphasize health and security suggests editorial "news values" differ by market; this could be tested by correlating the extracted indicators with outlet ownership or state affiliation.
  • A longitudinal version of this analysis, tracking the indicator frequencies week by week, could test whether war framing spikes after particular events (e.g., escalations) and whether peace framing ever rises, which would clarify whether the imbalance is structural or event-driven.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an NLP operationalization of Galtung's war/peace journalism indicators and applies it to a corpus of approximately 22,000 English-language news articles about the Israel-Palestine conflict published between October 2023 and February 2024 by outlets from the US, UK, and the Middle East. Generic frames are extracted with a Mistral-7B classifier, issue-specific war/peace indicators are extracted with Command-R using a prompt derived from Galtung's framework, and semantic frames are obtained with the Frame Semantic Transformer. The main empirical claims are that war indicators are more frequent than peace indicators across regions, and that regional outlets differ in who is cast as assailant and victim. The paper also reports differences in generic frames and in people-versus-elite focus across regions.

Significance. If the main claims held, the paper would be a useful step toward scalable, fine-grained conflict framing analysis and would connect computational framing research more directly to Galtung's social-science framework. The authors should be credited for grounding the issue-specific prompt in a published theoretical framework rather than in the paper's own conclusions, and for benchmarking the generic-frame step on the external Media Frames Corpus. The study is also framed as exploratory and its main claims are falsifiable. However, the central empirical claims currently rest on measurement instruments whose validity on this corpus is not demonstrated, so the contribution is an operationalization proposal with preliminary results rather than a validated finding.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Appendix prompt, Figure 2] The war-vs-peace frequency comparison is not supported as stated. The Appendix prompt lists more war-journalism sub-indicators (adversarial frame, attribution of blame, focus on elites, labelling, four language subcategories, partisan framing, visible effects, nationalistic frame with two subcategories, military solution) than peace-journalism sub-indicators (peace frame with three subcategories, invisible effects, peace orientation, people orientation, victim orientation). Figure 2 normalizes counts by article length only, not by the number of indicator categories, so war indicators have more opportunities to fire. The higher war-indicator frequency is therefore at least partly a measurement artifact. Please report per-category rates, or use a balanced prompt, and consider normalizing by category count.
  2. [§4.2, §5.2, Figure 3] The issue-specific LLM extraction is validated only by the sentence 'We conducted qualitative analysis of the LLM outputs and found them to be faithful to the article.' The regional demonizing/victimizing target findings in Section 5.2 and Figure 3 depend on this extraction, yet no precision/recall, no inter-annotator agreement, no gold-standard comparison, and no sensitivity analysis with respect to prompt phrasing are reported. Without these, the 'substantial differences' across regions could be artifacts of systematic over- or under-attribution by the LLM. Please provide a human-annotated gold standard and report per-indicator and per-region performance metrics.
  3. [§5.2, Table 3] The extracted 'people mentions' lists include non-person tokens such as 'impact' (US and ME), 'focus' (US and ME), 'including' (ME), 'martial' (UK), and 'anthony' (UK). These are unlikely to refer to people, which suggests the LLM's target extraction has low precision and that the elite-vs-people comparison in Table 3 is unreliable. Please report a manual precision check for the extracted mentions and correct the extraction procedure or the interpretation of the table.
  4. [§5.3] The assailant/victim regional claim is based on counting the Assailant and Victim frame elements of the FrameNet 'Attack' frame in headlines using the Frame Semantic Transformer. The paper reports no corpus-specific error analysis for this parser, and headline syntax, especially passives and nominalizations, can systematically misassign these roles. Please report precision/recall on a sample of headlines and check whether parser errors interact with region or outlet. The current evidence is insufficient to support the claim of 'substantial differences' in who is framed as assailant.
  5. [§4.1, Table 4, Figure 1] The generic-frame classifier has macro precision 0.39 and recall 0.58 on the MFC benchmark, with per-label F1 scores ranging from 0.28 to 0.66. Figure 1 and the regional generic-frame comparison are based on this classifier, but the paper does not propagate this uncertainty into the comparison or test whether observed regional differences are statistically significant. If generic-frame claims are retained, they should be accompanied by error bars or a robustness check that accounts for classifier noise.
minor comments (6)
  1. [References and Section 2] Several references are malformed, including 'Crispin C. Maslog and Kim' in Section 2 and the reference 'Seow Ting Lee Crispin C. Maslog and Hun Shik Kim', and 'Eytan Gilboa and Lilac Sigan and. 2024'. These need to be corrected.
  2. [§6] There is a typo in Section 6: 'anus vs them mindset' should be 'us vs them mindset'.
  3. [§5.3 / Appendix B] Figure 10 in the appendix (Assailants and Victims in headlines) is not referenced in the main text, even though its content is directly relevant to the assailant/victim discussion in Section 5.3.
  4. [Appendix B] Figure 13, 'Topics over time', is not discussed in the text; if kept, it should be integrated into the temporal analysis section.
  5. [§3.1] The length filtering removes the lowest 1% and top 5% of articles, but no sensitivity analysis is provided to show that the results are stable with respect to these cutoffs.
  6. [§3, Table 1] The Middle East sample is small and includes outlets with clear state or political affiliations (e.g., almanar.com.lb, mehrnews.com, sana.sy), while the UK and US samples are a mix of mainstream and partisan outlets. The paper should more explicitly discuss how this composition affects the generalizability of the regional comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are operationalizations of external frameworks (Galtung, FrameNet, MFC), not constructed fits or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: collect/filter a news corpus (Sec. 3); extract generic frames with an LLM following Arora et al. (2025) and benchmark it on the external Media Frames Corpus (Sec. 4.1, Table 4); extract issue-specific war/peace indicators with Command-R prompted by Galtung's published categories (Sec. 4.2, Appendix); extract semantic frames with the FrameNet-based Frame Semantic Transformer (Sec. 4.3); then aggregate and compare by region (Sec. 5). No parameter is fitted to the target findings, and no finding is defined in terms of another finding in the paper. The only author-overlap citation, Arora et al. (2025), supports the generic-frame extraction and is evaluated against the external MFC benchmark, which qualifies as independent evidence rather than a load-bearing self-citation. The core war/peace and regional assailant/victim results depend on Command-R target extraction and Frame Semantic parsing, neither of which is quantitatively validated on this corpus; Sec. 4.2 reports only 'qualitative analysis' and Sec. 7 acknowledges that LLMs 'are known to pick up biases in training data, thereby biasing the results.' These are important measurement-validity and robustness concerns, not circularity: the indicator definitions come from Galtung's framework and FrameNet rather than from the paper's own conclusions, and the LLM/parser outputs are not constructed to match the reported regional asymmetries. The imbalance in the number of war vs. peace indicator categories in the Appendix prompt can inflate the war/peace frequency comparison, but it is a design artifact of the operationalization, not a mathematical equivalence between input and output. Overall, the derivation is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new theoretical entities or fitted constants. Its inferential load is carried by applied assumptions: Galtung's framework is a valid lens, LLM and FrameNet outputs are faithful, and the corpus is representative. The two hand-set numeric choices (length cutoffs and the 9k subsample) affect corpus composition but not the conceptual measurement.

free parameters (2)
  • Length percentile cutoffs = bottom 1%, top 5%
    Section 3.1: removes the shortest 1% and longest 5% of articles to clean the corpus; chosen by hand and changes dataset composition but not likely to drive regional differences.
  • LLM analysis sample size = 9000 articles (equal thirds by region)
    Section 4.2: due to compute limits, issue-specific LLM analysis ran on 9k of 22k articles; the subsample is balanced but may not reflect the full corpus proportions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Galtung and Fischer's war/peace journalism categories can be operationalized as countable linguistic indicators.
    Section 2 and Table 2 treat Galtung's framework as a valid measurement instrument; no independent validation of the mapping is provided.
  • domain assumption The LLM prompts used to extract issue-specific indicators produce faithful, region-comparable outputs.
    Section 4.2: only qualitative inspection ('found them to be faithful') is reported; no inter-annotator or gold-label agreement.
  • domain assumption Frame-Semantic-Transformer applies FrameNet labels accurately to news headlines and text in this domain.
    Section 4.3 relies on a pretrained T5 parser with no corpus-specific evaluation; Assailant and Victim counts derive from its outputs.
  • domain assumption MediaCloud keyword query plus manual domain filtering yields a representative sample of each region's English-language coverage.
    Section 3: OR query with five terms and top-domain review; English-only and excludes Israeli and Palestinian outlets.
  • domain assumption Generic frame classifier performance on Media Frames Corpus transfers to this corpus.
    Section 4.1 reports macro precision 0.39 and recall 0.58 on MFC, which is weak; regional frame comparisons use this noisy signal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond the Battlefield: Framing Analysis of Media Coverage in Conflict Reporting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XUDMDX4C

@misc{pith2026250610421,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond the Battlefield: Framing Analysis of Media Coverage in Conflict Reporting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XUDMDX4C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10421}
}
read the original abstract

Framing used by news media, especially in times of conflict, can have substantial impact on readers' opinion, potentially aggravating the conflict itself. Current studies on the topic of conflict framing have limited insights due to their qualitative nature or only look at surface level generic frames without going deeper. In this work, we identify indicators of war and peace journalism, as outlined by prior work in conflict studies, in a corpus of news articles reporting on the Israel-Palestine war. For our analysis, we use computational approaches, using a combination of frame semantics and large language models to identify both communicative framing and its connection to linguistic framing. Our analysis reveals a higher focus on war based reporting rather than peace based. We also show substantial differences in reporting across the US, UK, and Middle Eastern news outlets in framing who the assailant and victims of the conflict are, surfacing biases within the media.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10421 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Normalised frequency of war vs peace indica [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Generic frames per region 5.2 Issue specific Framing Analysis - War and Peace Journalism Going beyond generic frames, we look at different indicators pointing us to war and peace oriented journalism. We plot the frequency normalised by the length of the articles for war and peace indica￾tors in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Relative frequency of Semantic Frames across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visible Effects of war across regions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relative frequencies of "Assailant" Frame Element for the "Killing" semantic frame across regions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Number of articles for each domain in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of length of articles from each region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Semantic frames showing invisible effects of war across UK, US, ME [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Assailants and Victims in headlines across UK, US, ME [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visible Effects of War (a) Co-Occurring semantic frames in the UK (b) Co-Occurring semantic frames in the US (c) Co-Occurring semantic frames in the Middle East [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Invisible Effects of War [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Topics over time in reporting from UK, US, and Middle Eastern sources [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Yamen Ajjour, Milad Alshomary, Henning Wachsmuth, and Benno Stein. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1290 Modeling Frames in Argumentation . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing ( EMNLP - IJCNLP ) , pages 2922--2932, Hong Kong...

    doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1290 2019

  2. [2]

    Mohammad Ali and Naeemul Hassan. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.emnlp-main.633 A Survey of Computational Framing Analysis Approaches . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 9335--9348, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2022

  3. [3]

    Arnav Arora, Srishti Yadav, Maria Antoniak, Serge Belongie, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2025. http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20960 Multi-modal framing analysis of news

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Bail, Lisa P

    Christopher A. Bail, Lisa P. Argyle, Taylor W. Brown, John P. Bumpus, Haohan Chen, M. B. Fallin Hunzaker, Jaemin Lee, Marcus Mann, Friedolin Merhout, and Alexander Volfovsky. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115 Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37...

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1804840115 2018

  5. [5]

    Baker, Charles J

    Collin F. Baker, Charles J. Fillmore, and John B. Lowe. 1998 a . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2505531 The berkeley framenet project . In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Baker, Charles J

    Collin F. Baker, Charles J. Fillmore, and John B. Lowe. 1998 b . https://doi.org/10.3115/980845.980860 The B erkeley F rame N et project . In 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Volume 1, pages 86--90, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Association for Computational Li...

    arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    Matthew A Baum and Yuri M Zhukov. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343314554791 Filtering revolution: Reporting bias in international newspaper coverage of the libyan civil war . Journal of Peace Research

    work page doi:10.1177/0022343314554791 2015

  8. [8]

    Sima Bhowmik and Jolene Fisher. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437231154766 Framing the israel-palestine conflict 2021: Investigation of cnn’s coverage from a peace journalism perspective . Media, Culture & Society, 45(5):1019--1035

    work page doi:10.1177/01634437231154766 2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Micha Bilewicz and Wiktor Soral. 2020. Hate speech epidemic. the dynamic effects of derogatory language on intergroup relations and political radicalization. Political Psychology, 41:3--33

    2020

  2. [10]

    Boydstun, Dallas Card, Justin Gross, Paul Resnick, and Noah A

    Amber E. Boydstun, Dallas Card, Justin Gross, Paul Resnick, and Noah A. Smith. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/6473780.v1 Tracking the Development of Media Frames within and across Policy Issues . American Political Science Association

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Boydstun, Justin H

    Dallas Card, Amber E. Boydstun, Justin H. Gross, Philip Resnik, and Noah A. Smith. 2015. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/P15-2072 The media frames corpus: Annotations of frames across issues . In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistic...

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    Carmen Cervone, Martha Augoustinos, and Anne Maass. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20967394 The language of derogation and hate: Functions, consequences, and reappropriation . Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1):80--101

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    David Chanin. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12788 Open-source frame semantic parsing

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Druckman

    Dennis Chong and James N. Druckman. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054 Framing Theory . Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1):103--126. \_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054

    2007

  7. [15]

    Maslog and Hun Shik Kim

    Seow Ting Lee Crispin C. Maslog and Hun Shik Kim. http://arxiv.org/abs/http://brenocon.com/Fillmore

  8. [16]

    Elizabeth W Dunn, Moriah Moore, and Brian A Nosek. 2005. The war of the words: How linguistic differences in reporting shape perceptions of terrorism. Analyses of social issues and public policy, 5(1):67--86

    2005

  9. [17]

    Robert M. Entman. 1993. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm . Journal of Communication, 43(4):51--58

    1993

  10. [18]

    Shangbin Feng, Chan Young Park, Yuhan Liu, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.656 From pretraining data to language models to downstream tasks: Tracking the trails of political biases leading to unfair NLP models . In Proceedings of the 61st An...

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Anjalie Field, Doron Kliger, Shuly Wintner, Jennifer Pan, Dan Jurafsky, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1393 Framing and Agenda -setting in Russian News : a Computational Analysis of Intricate Political Strategies . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conferen...

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Johan Galtung. 1969. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143440399 Violence, peace, and peace research . Journal of Peace Research, 6:167 -- 191

    1969

  13. [21]

    Johan Galtung and Dietrich Fischer. 2013. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:140568332 High road, low road: Charting the course for peace journalism

    2013

  14. [22]

    Eytan Gilboa and Lilac Sigan and. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537121.2024.2394292 The new york times coverage of the israel-hamas war: errors, omissions, and poor editorial supervision . Israel Affairs, 30(5):939--957

    2024

  15. [23]

    Maarten Grootendorst. 2022. Bertopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based tf-idf procedure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05794

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Felix Hamborg, Karsten Donnay, and Bela Gipp. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-018-0261-y Automated identification of media bias in news articles: an interdisciplinary literature review . International Journal on Digital Libraries, 20(4):391--415

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Rowell Huesmann, Eric F

    L. Rowell Huesmann, Eric F. Dubow, Paul Boxer, Violet Souweidane, and Jeremy Ginges. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00785.x Foreign Wars and Domestic Prejudice : How Media Exposure to the Israeli - Palestinian Conflict Predicts Ethnic Stereotyping by Jewish and...

    2012

  18. [26]

    Maurice Jakesch, Advait Bhat, Daniel Buschek, Lior Zalmanson, and Mor Naaman. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581196 Co-writing with opinionated language models affects users’ views . In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Aditya Kalyanpur, Or Biran, Tom Breloff, Jennifer Chu-Carroll, Ariel Diertani, Owen Rambow, and Mark Sammons. 2020. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:224819862 Open-domain frame semantic parsing using transformers . ArXiv, abs/2010.10998

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Liudmyla Kovalchuk and Yuliia Litkovych. 2022. Psycholinguistic aspects of representing aggression in wartime media discourse. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 9(2):67--81

    2022

  21. [29]

    Neil J Kressel. 1987. Biased judgments of media bias: A case study of the arab-israeli dispute. Political Psychology, pages 211--227

    1987

  22. [30]

    Lawrence

    Regina G. Lawrence. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X04266581 Framing Obesity : The Evolution of News Discourse on a Public Health Issue . Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 9(3):56--75. Publisher: SAGE Publications

    2004 doi

  23. [31]

    De Vreese

    Sophie Lecheler and Claes H. De Vreese. 2019. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315208077 News Framing Effects : Theory and Practice . Taylor & Francis

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Boomgaarden, Alyt Damstra, Jesper Strömbäck, and Yariv Tsfati

    Elina Lindgren, Torun Lindholm, Rens Vliegenthart, Hajo G. Boomgaarden, Alyt Damstra, Jesper Strömbäck, and Yariv Tsfati. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221117117 Trusting the facts: The role of framing, news media as a (trusted) source, and opinion resonance for percei...

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Corlia Meyer and François van Schalkwyk. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2232473 Framing Covid -19 in the South African News Media : An Analysis of 22 Months of Reporting . Journalism Studies, 0(0):1--21. Publisher: Routledge \_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Jonathan S. Morris. 2007. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144127527 Slanted objectivity? perceived media bias, cable news exposure, and political attitudes* . Social Science Quarterly, 88:707--728

    2007

  27. [35]

    Corman, and Huan Liu

    Fred Morstatter, Liang Wu, Uraz Yavanoglu, Stephen R. Corman, and Huan Liu. 2018. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3204948 Identifying Framing Bias in Online News . ACM Transactions on Social Computing, 1(2):1--18

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Michael Neureiter. 2017. Sources of media bias in coverage of the israeli--palestinian conflict: the 2010 gaza flotilla raid in german, british, and us newspapers. Israel Affairs, 23(1):66--86

    2017

  29. [37]

    Zhongdang Pan and Gerald M. Kosicki. 1993. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.1993.9962963 Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse . Political Communication, 10(1):55--75

    1993

  30. [38]

    Jakub Piskorski, Nicolas Stefanovitch, Giovanni Da San Martino, and Preslav Nakov. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.semeval-1.317 S em E val-2023 task 3: Detecting the category, the framing, and the persuasion techniques in online news in a multi-lingual setup . In Proce...

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    Hal Roberts, Rahul Bhargava, Linas Valiukas, Dennis Jen, Momin M. Malik, Cindy Bishop, Emily Ndulue, Aashka Dave, Justin Clark, Bruce Etling, Rob Faris, Anushka Shah, Jasmin Rubinovitz, Alexis Hope, Catherine D'Ignazio, Fernando Bermejo, Yochai Benkler, and Ethan Zuckerman. 20...

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Avi Rosenfeld. 2024. https://doi.org/10.36190/2024.16 Fighting Bias in the 2023-2024 Hamas - Israel Conflict . 2024:16

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Adam Shehata and David Nicolas Hopmann. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2011.646396 Framing Climate Change . Journalism Studies, 13(2):175--192. Publisher: Routledge \_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2011.646396

    2012

  34. [42]

    Swabha Swayamdipta, Sam Thomson, Chris Dyer, and Noah A. Smith. 2017. Frame-Semantic Parsing with Softmax-Margin Segmental RNNs and a Syntactic Scaffold . arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.09528

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Gisela Vallejo, Timothy Baldwin, and Lea Frermann. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.nlpcss-1.2 Connecting the dots in news analysis: Bridging the cross-disciplinary disparities in media bias and framing . In Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Natural Language Processin...

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Claes H. Vreese. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1075/idjdd.13.1.06vre News framing: Theory and typology . Information Design Journal, 13(1):51--62

    2005 doi

  37. [45]

    Weidmann

    Nils B. Weidmann. 2016. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143184764 A closer look at reporting bias in conflict event data . American Journal of Political Science, 60:206--218

    2016

  38. [46]

    Dustin Wright, Arnav Arora, Nadav Borenstein, Srishti Yadav, Serge Belongie, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.995 LLM tropes: Revealing fine-grained values and opinions in large language models . In Findings of the Association for ...

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Kaibin Xu. 2013. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2089 Framing Occupy Wall Street : A Content Analysis of The New York Times and USA Today . International Journal of Communication, 7(0):21. Number: 0

    2013

  40. [48]

    Wajdi Zaghouani, Mustafa Jarrar, Nizar Habash, Houda Bouamor, Imed Zitouni, Mona Diab, Samhaa El-Beltagy, and Muhammed AbuOdeh. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.arabicnlp-1.56 The FIGNEWS shared task on news media narratives . In Proceedings of the Second Arabic Natural ...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.