top of page
Search

The Role of Media Literacy and News Framing in the U.S.– Iran Conflict

Gomes Dias

Talking about media literacy means addressing individuals’ ability to access, analyze, and critically evaluate media messages, enabling them to make informed decisions about what they consume, create, and share.


Media coverage of international conflicts does not merely inform; it also shapes perceptions and can reinforce strategic narratives, requiring a high level of media literacy. In this context, media literacy becomes an essential competence, allowing audiences to critically interpret discourse, identify framing, and resist informational manipulation.


The greatest dilemma of the “fourth estate” is that the circulation of information in contexts of international conflict is rarely neutral. In circumstances of geopolitical tension, such as the case involving the United States and Iran, information becomes an instrument of power, and the absence of media literacy turns the public into passive consumers of political agendas.


The relationship between these two countries has historically been marked by distrust, hostility, and strategic disputes, intensified after the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Since then, episodes of economic sanctions, indirect confrontations, and nuclear tensions have been widely mediated.


However, the way these events are narrated reveals that information does not circulate in a pure or genuine state. Rather, it is filtered through interests, framing, and editorial choices. Terms such as “threat,” “security,” or “retaliation” are not neutral; they carry political and emotional implications.


In Western media, Iran is often associated with instability or nuclear risk, while in channels aligned with Tehran, the United States is portrayed as an agent of interference and domination. Moreover, the selection of governmental, military, or expert sources directly influences the interpretation of events. What is not said is often as relevant as what is communicated.


In a more military-centered approach, such as that of BBC News Brasil in an article published on March 16, 2026, there is a focus on the sequence of attacks, responses, and strategic justifications. The language presents actions in technical terms, using expressions such as “offensive,” “retaliation,” or “security,” which, although appearing neutral, carry significant semantic implications. By describing military actions as necessary responses or defensive measures, a narrative is constructed that may suggest implicit legitimacy. The framing emphasizes the operational dynamics of the conflict but offers little political or economic contextualization.


Meanwhile, a second line of coverage observed in CNN Portugal (CNN Portugal/IOL, 2026) described the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz as a “geopolitical trap,” suggesting that Iran was drawing the United States into a highly complex strategic game.


This choice of language—a military metaphor—shifts the narrative from the factual to the symbolic, creating a storyline that emphasizes cunning and emotional reaction rather than explanations based on concrete data such as maritime traffic or economic impacts. In this line of coverage, Iran is portrayed as strategic and cunning, while the United States appears reactive.


On the other hand, Al Jazeera (Al Jazeera, 2026) presents a regional framing that emphasizes human and infrastructural impacts, reporting the death of a worker at an energy and desalination facility in Kuwait and the interception of drones by Israel. This approach highlights concrete consequences for civilians and multiple regional actors, offering an important contrast to Western approaches focused on major powers or leaders.


Comparing these narratives, it becomes evident that media information is not merely factual; it is framed through explicit choices of language, focus, and context. In these publications, it can be observed that BBC prioritized strategic and individual interests, CNN focused on dramatic rhetoric, while Al Jazeera highlighted human and regional impacts. For the reader, these differences shape perceptions of legitimacy, responsibility, and analytical priorities regarding the conflict.


In this sense, media literacy does not consist of determining which narrative is true, but of identifying frames, questioning sources, and recognizing discursive intentions. In conflict contexts, understanding how the media construct information—and which omissions or emphases they select—is essential for critically interpreting complex events.


Regarding the (complex) ceasefire in this conflict, it has been presented in divergent ways. For some media outlets, it was seen as a necessary tactical retreat in the face of high costs, while others suggested political fragility or a lack of strategic coherence from the outset. This variation does not arise solely from factual differences but primarily from editorial choices, language use, and narrative emphasis, which guide public interpretation.


The piece by Expresso, concerning the ceasefire, does not function as factual news but as interpretative commentary, which already conditions its reading. The assertion that Donald Trump is “desperate” introduces a psychological and personalized framing of the conflict, shifting the focus from political and strategic structures to the individual figure. This simplifies a complex geopolitical scenario and induces an interpretation centered on intentions rather than solely on verifiable actions.


Meanwhile, the coverage line of SIC focused more on statements by JD Vance, presenting a different framing compared to Expresso, yet equally revealing in terms of media literacy. The focus was not on questioning or criticizing the war, but on a logic of diplomatic pressure with confrontational language, where expressions such as “not to play around” function as signals of strength and deterrence ahead of negotiations.


In Expresso, there is a clearly interpretative tone, where Donald Trump’s actions are presented as signs of fragility and improvisation, suggesting that entry into the war lacks a solid explanation and that the ceasefire emerges as an attempt to exit a poorly calculated situation. In contrast, SIC shifts the focus to JD Vance’s political communication, framing the conflict through a language of deterrence and firmness, combining openness to negotiation with direct warnings to Iran.


Thus, coverage of the conflict reveals not only what actually happened, but how different media construct meanings around the same event. This makes it clear that media literacy depends not only on access to information, but also on the ability to recognize framing, identify evaluative language, and question what is presented as self-evident. Around Donald Trump’s actions, many journalistic contents tend to personalize complex strategic decisions, reducing institutional and historical dynamics to individual intentions, which facilitates understanding but impoverishes analysis.


The analysis of these lines of coverage demonstrates that public perception of the same conflict varies significantly according to editorial focus, and that only a reader aware of such dynamics can form an informed and independent interpretation. This highlights the need for media literacy as a tool for critical interpretation, and this construction of critical thinking through the media is also an act of epistemological democratization.


Ultimately, it is about promoting competencies that enable citizens to become more sensitive to the social mechanisms of representation, which are often hidden in media language. In other words, any pedagogical action in this domain must consider cognitive content as well as beliefs, affective dimensions, and present demands. These elements reflect existing gaps in society regarding the development of critical awareness of its own reality and of the competencies it possesses.

 


 


Gomes Dias: Holds a degree in Social Communication from Agostinho Neto University (UAN). Conducts academic research on social networks, with an emphasis on teaching and learning processes, as well as Artificial Intelligence. He is Institutional Director of the Youth United of Portuguese-Speaking Countries (JUPLP). He is also a junior associate member of the Angolan Association of Institutional Communication Professionals (AAPCI), and a researcher and member of the CERES Research Council.

Social media:

 

Bibliographic References

 

Barbosa, E. (2001). Interactividade: A grande promessa do Jornalismo On line, Universidade do Minho, acedido através de www.bocc.ubi.pt

Comments

OUR EMAIL

OUR SCHEDULES

Segunda a Sábado, das 09:00 às 19h.

CHECK BACK OFTEN!

OUR SERVICES

Follow our social networks!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram

CERES is a platform for the democratization of International Relations where you are always welcome!

- Articles

- Market studies

- Researches

- Consulting in International Relations

- Benchmarking

- Lectures and courses

- Publications

© 2021 Centro de Estudos das Relações Internacionais | CERESRI - Imagens By Canvas.com - Free Version

bottom of page