Media construction of public understanding: The portrayal of Arab leaders in the New York Times

This study investigates the New York Times ’ coverage of Arab leaders and Middle Eastern conflicts to assess whether it reflects and reinforces prevailing United States foreign policy priorities in the region. Drawing on framing theory and models of the press–state relationship, the study analyses how media discourse produces and legitimizes particular interpretations of authority, threat and moral responsibility in the context of international news coverage. Using qualitative content analysis, the study analyses selected news reports, editorials and front-page headlines across three cases: the reign of King Hussein of Jordan (1965–79), Saddam Hussein before and after Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait and US media coverage of the 2023–24 war on Gaza. Articles were purposively sampled from the New York Times archives. The findings reveal a consistent pattern of media realignment corresponding to shifts in US strategic interests. King Hussein was predominantly framed as a moderate and reliable ally, whereas Saddam Hussein’s portrayal shifted rapidly from strategic actor to morally reprehensible aggressor following the invasion of Kuwait. The coverage of Gaza similarly privileged narratives of the Israeli security forces while marginalizing Palestinian humanitarian perspectives. The results suggest that US legacy media frequently reinforce official foreign policy frames, raising critical questions about journalistic independence and democratic accountability in foreign affairs reporting, especially in relation to the Middle East. This research calls for a more balanced and critical media, especially when reporting on conflict zones where the stakes for truth and for human lives are incredibly high.