Résumé:
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.
