IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rfa/smcjnl/v13y2025i1p72-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framing Pro-Palestine Protests: A Comparative Analysis of News Coverage by The Guardian and USA Today

Author

Listed:
  • Fadi Jaber

Abstract

This study examines the framing strategies employed by The Guardian and USA Today in their coverage of the pro-Palestine protests in American universities during April and May 2024. Accordingly, the corpus comprises 213 news texts, with The Guardian contributing 106 articles and USA Today contributing 107 articles from April 17 to May 17, 2024. The research identifies and contrasts the dominant frames used by these two newspapers by conducting a framing content analysis on the selected news articles. The Guardian frequently utilizes conflict and adversarial frames, emphasizing university-wide ideological and political struggles. Conversely, USA Today focuses on broader political confrontations and administrative accountability, often highlighting institutional responses and governance issues. The analysis process is guided by framing theory to reveal how news representations influence public perception and interpretation and media agenda-setting theory to explore how media news coverage prioritizes specific issues within the same event. The findings underscore the decisive role of media framing in shaping public opinion and priorities, particularly in the context of global and political issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Fadi Jaber, 2025. "Framing Pro-Palestine Protests: A Comparative Analysis of News Coverage by The Guardian and USA Today," Studies in Media and Communication, Redfame publishing, vol. 13(1), pages 72-82, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:rfa:smcjnl:v:13:y:2025:i:1:p:72-82
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://redfame.com/journal/index.php/smc/article/download/7245/6706
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://redfame.com/journal/index.php/smc/article/view/7245
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rfa:smcjnl:v:13:y:2025:i:1:p:72-82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Redfame publishing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.