EVENT SPECIFIC BLAME ATTRIBUTION IN THE IRAN-ISRAEL CONFLICT: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF MEDIA FRAMING ACROSS FOUR MAJOR EVENTS (2023-2025)

Abstract

This study focuses on how three ideologically differing newspapers apportioned blame for four specific events in the escalation of the Iran-Israel conflict: the October 7 Hamas attack, the Gaza military campaign, the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, and the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah. Using quantitative content analysis of 677 editorials of three different ideological countries. Haaretz, an Israeli left-wing newspaper; Kayhan, an International state-aligned newspaper; and The Wall Street Journal, a right-wing newspaper. The research examined patterns of blame attribution depending on the type of event or were consistent across many conflict incidents. There were significant differences in blame attribution across events for all three outlets (p< 0.001), based on statistical analysis. However, the direction of attribution was consistent across all: while Kayhan International had high levels of aggressor attribution to Israel for all events (range: 95.2%-100%), the Wall Street Journal had zero levels of aggressor attribution to Israel across all events (range: 0%-0%), Haaretz demonstrated moderate variation with event type (range: 8%-25% aggressor attribution to Israel). Chi-square tests of homogeneity, however, revealed that although absolute percentages differed between events, the relative positioning of outlets was stable. The results indicate that media framing of responsibility is highly consistent across different types of events. Even when events varied significantly in their character (attacks, assassinations, sustained military operations), outlets continued to follow their basic framing approaches. This seems to indicate that responsibility framing in conflict coverage is a reflection of systematic editorial policy, rather than an assessment of events.