In times of crisis—particularly within the context of military conflicts—the media move beyond their conventional role as mere transmitters of information. They become active agents in shaping public opinion, constructing dominant narratives, and organizing collective emotions. The twelve-day war between Iran and Israel once again demonstrated that the battlefield is not confined to weaponry and geography; the media, too, stand at the frontline of the battle over truth, legitimacy, and meaning. In such circumstances, reporting is not just a professional duty but a social, political, and ethical responsibility—one that has undeniable impacts on social cohesion, public trust, and political decision-making.

In moments when people face anxiety, uncertainty, and a flood of inaccurate information, the role of the media in filtering data, evaluating sources, and presenting a balanced view of reality becomes doubly significant. The absence of responsible journalism can fuel rumors, strengthen extremist narratives, and exacerbate psychological instability. On the other hand, media outlets that manage to distinguish between reporting and propaganda during a crisis play a vital role in supporting civil society and enhancing public rationality.

This article aims to examine how narratives are formed during crises by focusing on the media’s role during the recent war. It also investigates the professional responsibilities of journalists and the dangers posed by a lack of transparency in information dissemination. In an era where wars are waged not only with bullets but also with images and language, analyzing the media’s function is a necessity that cannot be ignored.

Media as the Second Battlefield

To understand contemporary conflicts, it is no longer sufficient to view the media as passive actors merely transmitting news. Theoretical approaches such as framing and agenda-setting show that the media not only select which stories to report but also shape and represent them to serve specific goals. In doing so, they actively influence collective understanding and reproduce power structures. This kind of media engagement transforms them into active agents in the production of meaning and the reconstruction of reality—extending their influence from the realm of geography to the domain of minds and narratives.

The twelve-day war between Iran and Israel is a clear manifestation of this shift from conventional warfare to a “war of narratives.” Official and unofficial media on both sides made strategic choices in selecting stories, crafting tone, and emphasizing particular aspects of events. Each side constructed a version of reality designed to legitimize its own political and military actions. In Iranian media, the focus on concepts such as resistance, legitimate defense, and the threat posed by Israel did not merely convey news but produced a dominant discourse that organized society into a friend-versus-foe binary.

On the other hand, Israeli media emphasized security threats and the destructive consequences of the attacks to persuade their audience of the necessity of forceful military responses. International media presented a more varied and complex picture: some highlighted human rights and civilian casualties, while others emphasized geopolitical considerations—each constructing the narrative of war from a particular angle.

Through this process, media platforms became arenas where control over “facts” and “meanings” mattered more than control over physical territory. This “second battlefield” is one where language, imagery, and storytelling have become tools of soft warfare, and the fight is for control over the minds and hearts of audiences. Such a scenario underscores the need for critical reassessment of the media’s role as social actors with ethical, professional, and political responsibilities, as the formation of narratives in this arena has deep consequences for social cohesion, identity politics, and a society’s resilience in the face of crisis.

Reconfiguring the Information Landscape: Between Censorship, Narrative, and Information Chaos

In today’s world, where crisis is no longer an exception but a recurring feature of global order, the function of the media has shifted from passive information transmission to active engagement in the production of reality. Within this context, the media are not simply mirrors reflecting crises—they are discursive architects who shape the battlefield through choices in emphasis, omission, and framing. The “war of narratives” in such a space becomes just as critical and decisive as military operations on the ground.

In moments of crisis, particularly in conflicts with complex geopolitical dimensions—such as the recent confrontation between Iran and Israel—the media find themselves at the intersection of heightened tensions: on one side, diverse and anxious audiences seeking reliable, multifaceted information; on the other, political structures striving to control public discourse. This environment turns the production of truth into a political act—a truth that is not absolute, but shaped by power dynamics and institutional frameworks.

Censorship and self-censorship, in this setting, function not only as mechanisms of suppression but also as discursive strategies through which political regimes craft coherent, predictable, and controllable narratives of crisis. This process, by eliminating complexity, diversity, and multivocality in war narratives, restricts the public’s capacity to perceive and respond to crises. In such systems, the media shift from being the “language” of crisis to the “tone” of power.

Conversely, international and regional media, which often operate within the frameworks of rival geopolitical interests, also employ theoretical tools such as agenda-setting and framing to guide public opinion. What matters is not just the news itself but the staging of a scene where the audience is confronted not with reality, but a constructed version of it—a narrative shaped by omission, emphasis, metaphor, and selective representation. As Pierre Bourdieu puts it, what governs here is “symbolic violence”: the exercise of power through meaning.

In addition, the oversaturation of the communication environment with inaccurate, contradictory, or distorted information—whether on social media or through ideologically driven pseudo-media—has resulted in what is now commonly referred to in scholarly literature as “information disorder.” In the absence of independent and transparent institutions, this chaos weakens not only the public’s decision-making processes but also society’s capacity to empathize with and critically engage in the experience of crisis. From this perspective, the media’s encounter with crisis is less a technical or professional issue than a philosophical, political, and epistemological one. What is at stake is not merely access to news but the very possibility of understanding reality and participating in its redefinition.

Media Responsibility in an Era of Perpetual Crisis: Beyond Reporting, Toward Rebuilding Trust

In a world where crises manifest constantly and in varied forms—from political and military tensions to economic and environmental emergencies—the media are more central than ever to public attention and expectations. This condition elevates their responsibility beyond the traditional task of reporting, positioning them as key players in maintaining social cohesion, strengthening solidarity, and fostering spaces for dialogue and awareness. Thus, media responsibility no longer ends at reflecting events—it moves toward rebuilding social trust and facilitating shared understanding of reality.

One of the main challenges in this direction is countering “pseudo-information” and “inconsistent reporting,” which not only lead to public confusion and fatigue but also create a deep distrust toward the entire media structure. Media outlets are responsible for ensuring accuracy and integrity in their reports and for offering narratives that promote empathy and mutual understanding rather than division. This responsibility demands a fundamental reevaluation of journalistic practices, linguistic choices, and storytelling techniques.

Moreover, the media must recognize their role in “democratic dialogue”—a dialogue where the voices of diverse social groups are heard and where critical and respectful discourse is encouraged. In this framework, the media must not become one-sided platforms, but rather spaces that amplify the voices of minorities, the voiceless, and the overlooked. Such an approach not only enhances media justice but also contributes to the formation of a dynamic and pluralistic public sphere capable of countering one-dimensional and exaggerated narratives.

Another key element of media responsibility is “transparency in the process” of news and report production. When media organizations honestly communicate with their audiences about their challenges, limitations, and methodologies, they lay the groundwork for lasting trust. This transparency becomes particularly critical during crises, when audiences are urgently seeking timely and accurate information, and plays a central role in reducing harmful speculation and rumors.

Beyond professional approaches, media in the contemporary era must also intelligently harness the potential of modern technologies to facilitate access to diverse sources and enable users to verify and cross-check information. The development of artificial intelligence tools, multi-platform ecosystems, and participatory media can significantly enhance the transparency and quality of published content.

Media responsibility is a delicate balance between freedom of expression and adherence to ethical principles. Media must take care that freedom of information does not equate to unverified or harmful content; rather, freedom must be exercised within a framework of respect for human dignity, the prevention of incitement to hatred or violence, and the protection of all members of society. Media responsibility in an era of recurrent crises is a challenge that requires a comprehensive commitment from journalists, editors, and policymakers alike. Only through mutual cooperation, investment in professional education, the development of transparent and sustainable infrastructures, and a focus on content quality can the media evolve from mere reporters to agents of social trust and facilitators of shared understanding.

References:

Islam, A. K. M. N., Laato, S., Talukder, S., & Sutinen, E. (2024). Social media trust: Fighting misinformation in the time of crisis. Telematics and Informatics, 89, 102120.
Fawzi, N., Steindl, N., Obermaier, M., Prochazka, F., Arlt, D., Blöbaum, B., & Ziegele, M. (2021). Concepts, causes and consequences of trust in news media – A literature review and framework. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(2), 154–174.
Park, S., Fisher, C., Flew, T., & Dulleck, U. (2020). Global mistrust in news: The impact of social media on trust. International Journal on Media Management, 22(2), 83–96.
Peifer, J. T., & Partain, L. P. B. (2023). Citizen forums: Examining a journalistic transparency initiative’s capacity to foster understanding, connection, and trust. Journalism Practice, 19(3), 467–487.