In times of international conflict and crisis, the media do far more than relay information. Through the processes of selection, prioritization, and framing, they play a decisive role in shaping public perceptions of unfolding events. In the era of global communications, public understanding of military crises is largely constructed through their media representation.

The recent attack by the United States and Israel on the Islamic Republic of Iran—and its portrayal across international media and social platforms—offers a compelling case study. Examining this coverage through the lens of international media law and states’ obligations regarding the free flow of information is therefore of particular significance.

Within media studies, the concept of “framing” refers to the construction of interpretive lenses through which audiences perceive events. By emphasizing certain aspects while downplaying or omitting others, media outlets actively shape the narrative. Framing theory, most prominently advanced by scholars such as Robert M. Entman, demonstrates that editorial choices—including headlines, sources, and the sequencing of information—can substantially influence audience interpretation. In contexts such as armed conflict, this process becomes an extension of geopolitical competition, as states seek to assert dominance over the prevailing narrative in global public discourse.

Alongside narrative framing, two critical phenomena in wartime media coverage are “structural censorship” and “media silence.” Censorship in this context does not necessarily involve the outright suppression of information; rather, it often manifests through reduced coverage, selective omission of visual evidence, or constraints on journalists’ access to sources. An analysis of recent reporting reveals patterns consistent with such practices in media outlets aligned with or influenced by the attacking parties. For instance, despite credible reports indicating that Iran’s retaliatory strikes inflicted significant damage on U.S. military installations in the region, a substantial segment of mainstream American media either minimized this development or afforded it only limited attention. In media scholarship, such practices are commonly understood as forms of “information filtering.”

A comparable dynamic is evident in coverage of Iran’s retaliatory operations targeting sites in the occupied territories. Official Israeli media and affiliated outlets have, in many cases, released only limited information regarding military casualties and infrastructural damage in cities such as Haifa and Tel Aviv. Reports from international correspondents—including a BBC journalist based in the occupied territories—have indicated that Israeli authorities imposed restrictions on reporting missile and drone strikes against sensitive military and governmental locations, preventing the dissemination of detailed accounts. In a related incident, according to confirmed reports, an Indian television journalist was detained by security forces after revealing the location of an attack on the residence of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. These measures underscore the extent to which control over information flows has become an instrument for managing narratives and influencing public opinion.

At the same time, certain media infrastructures within Iran, including facilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), have reportedly been targeted during the hostilities. Coverage of these incidents by media affiliated with the attacking states has often been marked by elements of exaggeration or sensationalism. Under international humanitarian law, journalists and media institutions are generally classified as civilians and civilian objects, and as such, they are entitled to special protection. Central to this framework is the principle of distinction, which obliges parties to an armed conflict to differentiate between legitimate military objectives and civilian persons or property. This principle, reaffirmed in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, constitutes a cornerstone of the law of armed conflict. However, an examination of the conduct attributed to Israel in its past and present military engagements—including operations in Palestine, Lebanon, and the so-called Twelve-Day War—suggests a pattern of disregard for this obligation, particularly in relation to strikes on media entities. Such actions raise serious concerns regarding compliance with the principles of proportionality and civilian protection.

The international community has repeatedly emphasized the necessity of safeguarding journalists in conflict zones. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2222, for example, calls upon all parties to armed conflict to ensure the safety of media personnel and to refrain from actions that could impede their professional duties.

In parallel with the relative decline of traditional media, social media platforms and digital ecosystems have emerged as influential actors in shaping wartime narratives. Platforms such as Telegram, X (formerly Twitter), and Instagram play a critical role in the dissemination—and, at times, restriction—of information. In certain instances, these platforms have been accused of facilitating biased, exaggerated, or misleading content, thereby contributing to broader dynamics commonly described as information warfare and psychological operations.

From the standpoint of international law, the right to access information and the free flow of news are fundamental principles underpinning the global communications order. These rights are enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which affirms the freedoms to seek, receive, and impart information. Any limitations imposed on these rights must meet the strict criteria of necessity and proportionality. Where state actions—such as restricting information flows or targeting media institutions—contravene international legal obligations, the issue of state responsibility arises. According to the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, as developed by the International Law Commission, breaches of international obligations may entail legal responsibility and an obligation to provide reparation.

In conclusion, the analysis of media coverage surrounding the current conflict demonstrates the extensive use of narrative framing, structural censorship, and media silence as tools for shaping public perception. In such a context, reinforcing both the legal and professional frameworks governing media conduct becomes imperative. Key policy priorities should include: strengthening international journalistic standards and promoting balanced, multi-source reporting; enhancing transparency by states and minimizing undue restrictions on journalists; reinforcing legal protections for media actors under international humanitarian law; establishing international mechanisms to monitor and document censorship; requiring greater algorithmic transparency from digital platforms; expanding fact-checking initiatives to counter disinformation; improving public media literacy; and developing binding international legal frameworks to ensure accountability for the dissemination of misleading information during armed conflict.

By Dr. Hassan Garusi, Faculty Member, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Tehran Central Branch Visiting Professor, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services