The news is not a reflection of reality, but rather a representation of it — a construction of events carried out by journalists under specific production conditions and through various formats. In this sense, communication is significant because it produces meaning, and news is the narrative of an event that involves certain elements.
First, the initial decision to include (or not) certain topics in the media agenda.
Then, the voices — that is, the sources. And finally, the grammars or manifestations in the creation of that communicative act, such as images, accompanying music, silences, rhythm, among others.
Thus, the field of influence is not only about giving relevance to a topic that will be included in the agenda but also about what will be said about it, who will say it, and how. Likewise, it’s about choosing what will be hidden or left unsaid.
Nevertheless, it is important to stress that the media does not have an absolute impact capable of permeating ideas and achieving total social control. They are not the sole determinant of public opinion; rather, there are multiple factors that shape opinion trends. Therefore, the media is only one — albeit important — part among many other economic, cultural, social, and political forces that influence behaviors and beliefs.
Again: its influence is broad, but always relative.
What we are dealing with here is a power struggle. The fight for control of the media is a debate and conflict present in political events across various parts of the world.
One could argue that, in the West, there is a historical process involving media designs — particularly in the press — that promote narratives which justify certain actions. So, communication becomes a battlefield.
Wasn’t the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for instance, based on lies? Or isn’t the occupation of Palestine and the genocide of its people a situation largely omitted by the major international media powers?
Fake news crafted and operated by intelligence services in Washington has been embraced by much of the international media. There is, however, a growing body of books, documentaries, and films that debunk this narrative.
In this way, journalism becomes part of the debate and power struggle, from the perspective of editorial intentionality. The hegemonic discourse produced by Anglo-American global power seeks to generate worldwide identification with its interests — and, consequently, to point out its chosen enemies.
If we look at Israel’s political stance, it fits within this framework: the intention is to justify its policies through a narrative that attempts to construct a social imaginary — a system of meaning, ethics, and notions of good and evil — in line with the reproduction of domination.
The concept of "Islamic terrorism" as used by major Western media can be understood in this light. As can the euphemistic naming of events — like calling civilian deaths in a war "collateral damage".
The definition of terrorism, as a tool of stigmatization and political delegitimization, must be analyzed in terms of its ideological function.
Argentinian journalist and writer Rodolfo Walsh, who was murdered by Argentina’s last military dictatorship (from where I speak), wrote a series of articles in the 1970s, later compiled in the book The Palestinian Revolution.
I’d like to share a fragment that condenses the geopolitical and discursive framework.
"`Palestinians? I don’t know what that is`, said Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir at the time. We know the illusory power of this argument, used in Algeria, Vietnam, and the Portuguese colonies to deny the existence of liberation movements”.
Then, Walsh added:
“The enemy does not exist and everything is under control. Each of these denials has caused rivers of blood, but they have not stopped history.”
Fifty years ago, he wrote:
"The official policy of the State of Israel is to pretend that Palestinians are Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, or Lebanese who have gone mad and claim to be Palestinians. They even demand to return to the lands they 'voluntarily' left in 1948, or which were taken from them — not so voluntarily — in the wars of 1956 and 1967. Since they cannot return, they resort to terrorism. In short, they are 'Arab terrorists.' It's useless that in the Middle East these arguments have been dismantled, reduced to absurdity. Israel is the West, and in the West, lies circulate as truth — until the day they become militarily unsustainable.”
Walsh reveals a narrative framework — a strategy to justify an occupation policy.
If we explore other parts of the narrative about the Middle East, we can attempt to explain the motivations behind the attack on the Islamic world, considering that the values presented by the hegemonic Western discourse — supposedly positive — may actually be harmful manifestations of Power.
It is, quite simply — and they don’t even try to hide it — about defending and preserving the empire’s vital interests. It’s about oil, energy routes, and geopolitical positioning.
While we can trace different historical stages of the Western view on Islam, we might point to the 19th century — with the Ottoman Empire in retreat and Western powers growing — as a moment when Islam began to be demonized through a patronizing representation: presented as inferior, incapable of self-governance, ignorant, backward, or regressive.
This coincides with French colonialism invading Algeria (1830), Britain occupying Aden (1839), and French and British invasions of Tunisia (1881), Egypt (1882), Sudan (1898), Libya and Morocco (1912). These took place during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Later, in another historical context, a new process of Islam demonization took place — this time with a much more sophisticated use of propaganda technologies, including cinema.
This “orientalist” view is based on a binary opposition: West vs. East, Us vs. Them, the Familiar vs. the Other — where the "Other" is placed in the Eastern pole.
Even the use of the chador or hijab has often been presented as clear proof of women’s oppression. Yet, if we look at Iran, it’s worth remembering that the pro-Western Shah Pahlavi, in his efforts to Westernize society, banned the use of hijab and chador for Muslim women — a fact often omitted in the West. The Shah, also known as the "policeman of the United States," attempted to impose Western standards on a society that resisted them.
The concept of “Islamic terrorism” functions as a stigmatizing tool of delegitimization — just like the euphemistic language used to frame events, such as calling civilian victims of war “collateral damage.”
In Latin America, we’ve seen similar processes under the so-called "backyard" policies or "America for Americans" doctrine, with the implementation of the U.S. National Security Doctrine, which produced a genocide in our region.
Again, in the media construction realm, Israel’s invasions of Lebanon (2006) and Palestine are marked by omissions, minimizations, or decontextualizations. These are also used today with disturbing intensity — like referring to these events as a "conflict," "clash," or "crisis" instead of using terms like "invasion" or "occupation." Another example is the animalization of Gaza’s inhabitants.
However, in recent months or weeks, it seems that Israel is losing narrative control. As we said at the beginning, the field of influence is determined by several factors.
Perhaps, due to advances in information and communication technologies, we are now — more than ever — seeing with our own eyes the images of mass killings circulating on social media. Any attempt to deny this appears obscene, considering the grave humanitarian crisis faced by the people of Gaza, where a genocide is underway.
Moreover, the work done by journalists on the ground in Gaza, and the unbearable situation of its population, makes the credibility of the dominant narrative increasingly untenable.
The killing of journalists, too, is part of an effort to hide the unhideable.
To conclude these reflections, I want to remember the Palestinian journalist from Al Jazeera — and his colleagues — who were murdered just days ago by the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip. He, too, was stigmatized to "justify" his assassination. His name was Anas al-Sharif, 28 years old, who died along with other journalists after being hit by a bombing while inside a press tent.
In addition to all the factors I mentioned that challenge the dominant narrative, there’s also the work of independent journalists and media outlets, as well as social mobilization — an unavoidable element — taking place in many parts of the world in defense of a just cause: the resistance against occupation and massacre.
By Ursula Asta, Argentinian geopolitical analyst
This article was presented at the conference on “Israeli State Terrorism,” held on the occasion of the Iran’s National Day of Fight against Terrorism, organized by Habilian Association (Iranian Families of Terrorism Victims).