Read and analyze each source

What differences do you notice in framing, and whose voices are heard or omitted?

How does the headline frame the event? Who is the main focus (hostages, rescuers, soldiers, civilians)?

What details are included in the beginning paragraphs, does it suggest anything about the article’s framing?

What specific words or phrases are used to describe the military actions of Israel / the U.S.? Are they neutral, sympathetic, or critical?

Are terms like “terrorism” or “self-defense” used? Against whom? Does their use justify or condemn violence?

How are Palestinians described as and according to who? Civilians, combatants, or another term? How does this wording choice affect perception?

Does the article use active or passive voice when describing Palestinian deaths (e.g., “were killed” vs. “Israeli forces killed”)?

Are images or descriptions used to evoke sympathy or horror? Which groups are described with which emotions?

How does the article humanize or dehumanize different groups?

Who is quoted in the article (e.g., Israeli officials, Palestinian survivors, U.S. government)? Who is not quoted?

Whose perspective dominates the narrative?

Are any human rights organizations or independent observers referenced? Who is cited/credited with providing information about the event i.e military officials, civilians, journalists?

How is responsibility for violence assigned or avoided?

After reading each article, what is your emotional response?

How does the way and article is written influence public opinion or policy?

How does media framing influence which lives are valued?

In what ways does framing reinforce global power structures or imperial interests?

How does this connect to Said’s Orientalism or media framing theory?