Dr Akshay Kumar and Dr Nishant Kumar Bhardwaj*
On the morning of 28 February 2026, 168 girls between the ages of 7 and 12 were killed in their school. The United States and Israel had launched a joint missile strike on Iran, in the middle of nuclear peace talks.
Across 40 days, US and Israeli attacks hit hospitals, universities, energy infrastructure, and schools in multiple locations. These acts are prohibited under International Humanitarian Law. International law clearly lays down that children and schools must be protected.
While a war was waged on the battlefield, another war of narratives was undergoing on social media and the traditional media landscape.
What is also clear, from looking at the Indian press, is that some of the country's most respected newspapers chose to frame this war the way Washington wanted it framed, not the way the facts demanded.
India has long prided itself on a foreign policy of strategic autonomy. It is worth asking whether its media has quietly abandoned the same principle.
On February 27, the Indian Express reported, “Washington to hold critical nuclear talks with Tehran Today in Geneva”. However, the next day, when the US and Israel unilaterally attacked Iran in the midst of the talks, this is what the newspaper’s headlines read: “Iran attacks Israel: What triggered the US-Israel joint missile strike in Iran.”
Read that again. ‘Iran attacks Israel’ in a headline about a US-Israel strike on Iran. Though US and Israel had attacked Iran and on the first day it had killed 168 girls, the Indian Express framed it as Iran as the aggressor while Israel as the victim. The 168 dead schoolgirls were mentioned in passing reference.
Also, missing was any context or reference to the talks between the US and Iran that Indian Express had reported on February 27. But the next day, when those same talks turned out to be a cover for an attack, there was no mention.
The February 28 report's own subheading quietly contradicted its headline. “Israeli authorities have advised the residents to remain close to designated rooms but have not ordered them to enter shelters so far. Iran has not yet announced any retaliatory action”. While the Indian Express story states that Iran has not started retaliation, the headline says, "Iran attacks Israel".
This is what biased framing looks like in practice. It isn't always about what's false. It's about what gets prominence and what gets buried. The breach of trust during live negotiations were erased from the headlines. The killed schoolgirls were almost missing. Instead, the aggressor became the victim, and the victim became the threat.
The Telegraph ran a quote as its headline: "They said the nuclear talks are going well, they fooled us again". The story was framed through the lens of Iranian panic rather than the documented fact of a surprise attack during diplomacy.
Once again the Reuters story that The Telegraph published revealed a tilt in favour of US-Israel, and the public of Iran was framed as against the Iranian government itself. Rather than giving voice to the public of Iran, whose children had been killed, blamed Iran’s government representatives, who were holding the talks.
The story reframed public fury inward. Iranians were angry at being deceived by their own leaders, not at the country that had just bombed them during peace talks, it suggested.
The newspapers in India have failed to use the word “Attack” on Iran. Rather, they were found using the same vocabulary, which framed the US-Israel actions as justifiable. Take for instance the word “Strike”.
A simple dictionary meaning of strike is, “a precise and often focused action. It’s a technical, military jargon. It can imply causing damage with precision,” while the word “Attack” stands for causing harm, injury, destruction in a stronger connotation of aggression and violence. A look at the acts of Israel and US, were they not attacks? Though it was, there was a clever attempt by the Indian media to structurally obscure accountability by blurring the distinction between aggressor and victim.
Similar was the deliberate distinction between using the word ‘regime’ for Iranian government, while US and Israel were referred to as ‘Governments’. The word ‘Regime’ denotes a government which is questionable, oppressive, and unstable. The word government denotes legitimate, recognised authority. So, the Iranian government is framed as a regime, which automatically raises questions over their credibility, while the usage of government for Israel and Iran give credibility to the US and Israel.
The narratives of the conflict framed Iran as a threat to global democracy. However, a look at the world map with American bases in the world reveals that the USA has over 750 bases in over 80 countries of the world, while Iran has none. The USA is spending more on its military than the next 10 countries combined.
US sources authentic, Iran sources questionable
Another disparity in framing was found in the attribution of sources in the news stories. Whatever the US Army or US politicians, including Trump and JD Vance, or their spokespersons have been saying, all were framed as authentic and not questionable at all. On the other hand, whatever the Iranian government or its Foreign Minister had been saying was taken as claims. While the reports mentioned “US officials said………….”, they said, Iran claims……”.
Iran's voice was almost missing while the media landscape was occupied by US sources. Even in India, the newspapers or agencies publishing from Tehran were unable to open for several days together. Tehran Times, the official newspaper of Iran, was inaccessible in India for nearly 40 days of the conflict, while all the newspapers of the US and Israel, including Haaretz (which maintains its journalistic independence), The Jerusalem Post, and The Israel Times, were easily accessible and open.
How such pro-USA-Israel narrative was created
The world media landscape including newspapers, news agencies have been dominated by USA and Western-centric channels, including Associated Press, Reuters and AFP. The infinite flow of global events is filtered through a highly concentrated Western and US centric information system, which frame US, West, and their allies in the Middle East as democratic, while any country not following their footsteps as autocratic, and anti-people.
Essentially, the global news flow is controlled by around six pro-Western conglomerates, including Comcast, NBC Universal, Disney, CBS, VIACOM, News Corporation, AT&T. A long time ago, such a grim media scenario was mentioned by media political economist Ben. H. Bagdidian in his book “The new Media Monopoly” in the 1980s. The concentration of media houses in the world media landscape has increased further.
Similar is the case with internet traffic and its mechanism of algorithms. Most of the companies controlling the internet are pro-US or pro-West. Google, Microsoft, Meta, Yahoo, Amazon, and Apple hold a monopoly over the internet market and algorithms, and they manufacture consent in favour of US and Israel.
The Lego videos produced and shared by Iran’s supported groups such as “Explosive Media”
gained huge traction on social media but the banning of “Lego videos" by YouTube can be seen as an example of how they control the narrative, which goes against the US. The algorithms inherently favour and amplify English language content and established western institutional sources.
In this way the media is not reporting the conflict, but it is actively producing the meanings in which Western narratives dominate. This is a systemic way of demonising any country against the US.
(*Dr Akshay Kumar and Dr Nishant Kumar Bhardwaj teach in the Department of Media Studies, Christ Deemed to be University, Delhi NCR Campus.)
Have you liked the news article?