A Comparative Study of the New York Times Coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian and Russia-Ukrainian Conflicts before and after 7 October 2023 through the Lens of the Critical Discourse Analysis and the Propaganda Model

Abstract

This dissertation critically examines how The New York Times framed the Israeli–Palestinian and Russia–Ukraine conflicts before and after October 7, 2023. Using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and the Propaganda Model proposed by Herman and Chomsky, the research investigates shifts in media representation, linguistic patterns, and ideological framing within NYT headlines. Drawing on Fairclough‟s and van Dijk‟s CDA frameworks, the study analyses two months of headline coverage, revealing how narrative focus, lexical choices, and thematic emphasis vary between conflicts and across time. The findings suggest a clear asymmetry in editorial attention and representational balance. The Russia–Ukraine war was covered more consistently and with a focus on Ukrainian resilience, leadership, and suffering, while the Israeli–Palestinian conflict received sporadic attention often surging only during moments of dramatic escalation. Israeli perspectives were more prominently framed with agency and strategic clarity, whereas Palestinian voices appeared largely in humanitarian contexts, often stripped of political identity. The study concludes that The New York Times‟ coverage reflects subtle patterns of ideological bias shaped by institutional pressures and geopolitical alignments, offering empirical support for the relevance of the Propaganda Model in the digital news era.