Structural information gaps and media literacy in US-Iran tensions: A systemic approach to navigating conflict narratives
Original framing: “Information is a battlefield: 4 questions you can ask to judge the reliability of news reports and social posts about the US-Iran war” — The Conversation - Global
The original framing omits the role of indigenous and non-Western media practices in truth-telling, the historical context of US-Iran relations, and the structural biases embedded in Western media. It also neglects the voices of Iranian citizens and regional actors who are directly impacted by the conflict but rarely given a platform in global media.
Medium structural omission detected in mainstream coverage.
This narrative is produced by a Western academic institution (The Conversation) for a global audience, primarily English-speaking and educated. It serves the framing of media literacy as a personal responsibility, which deflects from the structural manipulation of information by state and corporate powers. The framing obscures the role of geopolitical interests in shaping what is considered 'reliable' information.
The current US-Iran tensions are part of a long history of Western intervention in the Middle East, including the 1953 coup in Iran. Historical parallels show how media has been used as a tool to legitimize military action and control public perception, a pattern that repeats in modern conflict reporting.
The US-Iran conflict is not only a geopolitical struggle but also a battle over the control of information.