Media warfare; from information to influence
In today’s interconnected world, war is no longer fought only on conventional battlefields. It has expanded into the media space, where narratives, images, and perceptions shape public opinion and political outcomes. Media warfare increasingly relies on news framing, digital platforms, and social networks, blurring the line between information and propaganda. The following exclusive interview, conducted with Annunthra Rangan, senior research officer at the Chennai Centre for China Studies, explores this evolving landscape and examines how control over narratives has become a key source of power in contemporary global politics.
By Asgar Ghahremanpour
Editor-in-chief
IRAN DAILY: From a theoretical perspective in international relations, how should media warfare be best conceptualized today: as soft power, cognitive warfare, influence operations, or an extension of hybrid warfare?
RANGAN: In international relations (IR), theories are not neutral or universal truths; they are products of specific historical moments and power structures. They are developed by individuals and states to explain and often justify their own interests. In that sense, media warfare cannot be explained through a single IR theory. It is a strategic phenomenon that cuts across realism, constructivism, and critical theories simultaneously.
At its core, media warfare is warfare by itself. It is an extension of power projection, not an auxiliary activity. Media functions as a major sophisticated tool of soft power, enabling states to achieve political and strategic objectives without any direct defence-related confrontation. This is where propaganda and influence operations become central. Influence operations are not subtle or accidental; they are deliberate efforts to shape perception, control narratives, and manufacture consent at both domestic and international levels, like how China does.
Globally, the dominant narrative continues to be the Western narrative. This dominance is structural and has been entrenched since World War II. Western media does not merely report events; it has its own definition of legitimacy, morality, and acceptable opinion and backs it up with its reporting. By repeatedly projecting its perspective as the “international consensus,” it marginalises alternative voices and normalises a pro-Western worldview as objective truth.
Modern media warfare operates on multiple interconnected levels. Cognitive warfare targets how people think, feel, and interpret reality. Information warfare determines what information is released, what is suppressed, and how events are framed. The current narratives surrounding Iran and Palestine clearly demonstrate this selective framing, where certain actions are amplified while others are systematically ignored or justified by Israel and the US. Hybrid warfare is the deliberate fusion of media, diplomacy, economic pressure, technology, and digital platforms into one offensive strategy designed to shape outcomes without open conflict.
Ultimately, this is a battle for the human mind. Media warfare attacks perception itself. Media platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram, and Facebook act as force multipliers, accelerating narrative dominance and reinforcing ideological echo chambers. In today’s media environment, journalism is rarely neutral. News is increasingly designed to generate impact, align with a country’s interests and narratives, and sustain propaganda news rather than present balanced realities. Media warfare is mainly about power, control, and the strategic manipulation of truth.
To what extent is modern media warfare still state-driven, and how much has it become a networked process involving private media, platforms, and non-state actors?
The state remains the architect of media warfare. Targets, threat perceptions, and the overall nature of media conflict are not accidental — they are designed and guided by state doctrines, national security strategies, and foreign policy objectives. Media houses and propaganda ecosystems do not operate in isolation; they function within a framework created and sustained by the state to project legitimacy and shape global perception.
If we take the United States as an example, major media outlets such as CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Bloomberg act as narrative setters. Their framing often becomes the reference point that other countries’ media later adopt, sometimes with minimal variation. This has historically been the case. Every country has its own primary narrative drivers. India looks to The Hindu, The Times of India, and Deccan Herald; Iran relies on Iran Daily and Tehran Times. The difference lies not in the existence of national media, but in how strategically and systematically these narratives are deployed.
What we are witnessing today is a carefully curated information network where narratives flow in a predictable pattern: from official statements to major media outlets and then into international reporting. While wordplay may differ, the core framing often remains aligned with the original state position. This is where influence operations become central to media warfare.
China offers a textbook case of influence operations. Through instruments such as Confucius Institutes, Beijing has embedded soft power messaging within major South and Southeast Asian countries. Its “50-Cent Army,” comprising thousands of online operators, actively amplifies pro-China narratives while discrediting adversaries. During periods of heightened tension, including recent India-Pakistan escalations, coordinated digital campaigns were deployed to promote narratives favourable to Pakistan and hostile to India. These are not spontaneous public reactions; they are structured influence efforts.
Similarly, the United States’ media strategy toward Iran over the past four decades and Palestine in recent years demonstrates how sustained narrative framing can shape global opinion. Through aligned media coverage, think tanks, and policy research institutions, certain perspectives are amplified while others are systematically marginalised. As a result, alternative viewpoints struggle to gain legitimacy, regardless of evidence or context.
That said, the operational space of media warfare has expanded beyond direct state control. Private media corporations, social media platforms, public relations firms, think tanks, and even individual influencers now act as force multipliers. While these actors may not be formally coordinated by governments, they often operate within the same ideological, economic, or geopolitical alignment. Algorithms, platform policies, monetisation models, and ownership structures ensure that some narratives are prioritised while others are suppressed.
Non-state actors further blur accountability. Diaspora networks, advocacy groups, and digitally mobilised movements participate actively in narrative battles, often providing states with plausible deniability. This diffusion of responsibility is a defining feature of contemporary media warfare. Ultimately, what has changed is not who benefits, but how power is exercised. Media warfare has evolved from a centrally controlled, state-broadcast model into a decentralised yet strategically aligned ecosystem.
Do you believe the traditional distinction between information, propaganda, and psychological operations still holds in contemporary conflicts?
In today’s media environment, the traditional distinctions between information, propaganda, and psychological operations no longer function as separate categories. In practice, they form a single influence continuum. Often, it is not the content itself but the interpretation and framing of that content that has the greatest impact. What is presented as news today is rarely neutral; it is shaped by perspectives, interests, and strategic intent rather than objective reporting.
As I mentioned earlier, contemporary news is frequently a culmination of selective viewpoints rather than a complete representation of reality. Algorithms do not distinguish between information and propaganda. They reward core engagement. This means emotionally charged narratives, moral framing, and polarising content are systematically amplified, while nuanced or inconvenient perspectives are deprioritised. As a result, the line between informing the public and manipulating perception has become increasingly blurred.
Social media platforms further collapse these distinctions by placing state narratives, media reporting, influencer commentary, and public opinion within the same ecosystem. In modern conflicts, influence is not exercised through isolated campaigns but through sustained narrative environments. A single news story can simultaneously inform, persuade, and psychologically condition audiences. This is clearly visible in conflicts such as Ukraine, Israel-Palestine, or narratives surrounding Iran, Russia, and other non-aligned countries — if I could put it that way — where reporting and strategic messaging operate in parallel and reinforce one another.
While the terminology of information, propaganda, and psychological operations still exists for analytical clarity, the reality is that contemporary media warfare operates on a fused model. These elements now function together to shape not just short-term opinion, but long-term perceptions of legitimacy, threat, and morality.
Today, social media often influences public opinion more than traditional news itself. Influencers shape perceptions more powerfully than institutions, and consumption patterns are determined by algorithmic design rather than informed choice. Platforms like Meta effectively decide what gains visibility and what does not. Content that challenges dominant Western or pro-Israel narratives often faces “shadow-banning”. This is not an anomaly. It is how modern media power operates.
Which classic media theories — such as agenda-setting, framing, or “manufacturing consent” — remain most useful for analyzing modern media warfare, and which have lost explanatory power?
Classic media theories remain relevant today, but their application has evolved. Modern media is less about neutral reporting and more about aligning with the strategic interests of powerful actors (non-governmental actors, to be precise) and shaping narratives that serve those interests. In this sense, states leverage the media to project power and advance their objectives — a very realistic use of information as a tool of influence. Among classic theories, the Hypodermic Needle model is particularly evident today. Media messages are “injected” directly into audiences, who often accept them uncritically. Modern media doesn’t just inform people, it guides them to adopt the narrative it dictates.
Framing and agenda-setting remain important as well. Media not only selects which topics to cover but also determines how they are interpreted, highlighting certain aspects while omitting others. This structural bias is especially visible in capitalist media systems, where ownership, advertising, sourcing, and ideology influence what reaches the public. For example, how often do we see reporting on corporate misdeeds in India, like issues around Adani, versus how extensively China’s Covid response is covered in its own media? Or how much coverage does the Epstein case currently receive in the US? These are a few examples that illustrate that media narratives are curated to serve elite interests and shape public perception, precisely what classic media theories like agenda-setting, framing, and manufacturing consent sought to explain, but now in a more sophisticated, strategic, and networked form, like you mentioned.
In your view, has media warfare shifted from persuasion toward strategies of cognitive overload, confusion, and emotional exhaustion?
Media warfare today has moved far beyond online consumption; it is actively shaping how people think, perceive, and process reality. The volume and repetition of digital content have reached a point where information doesn’t just inform, it settles into the mind. People are rarely given the space to pause, reflect, or engage in original thinking because the flow of content is constant and overwhelming. When individuals are repeatedly exposed to the same biased viewpoints, those perspectives begin to feel like the objective truth. Over time, the brain starts aligning itself with that bias, not necessarily because the information is accurate, but because it is familiar and frequently reinforced. This is no longer just about belief formation. What we are seeing instead is a form of paralysis, polarization, and emotional capture. Media narratives increasingly mix facts, half-truths, and outright fabrications, while accelerating news cycles ensure that stories disappear before they can be properly verified or challenged.
The result is confusion and emotional fatigue rather than clarity, making audiences less capable of critical engagement and more vulnerable to manipulation.
How do Western mainstream media employ framing techniques in their coverage of the Israel–Palestine conflict to shape perceptions of legitimacy and self-defense?
It is widely evident that Western mainstream media coverage of Israel’s actions in Gaza is deeply biased. From the very beginning of the war, Israeli military operations have consistently been portrayed as acts of self-defense. Even when examined closely, these actions are framed as legitimate rights rather than acknowledged as potential crimes under international law. Western media narratives overwhelmingly support the offenders, including Benjamin Netanyahu, and tend to align themselves with Tel Aviv. Over time, a powerful and simplified perception has been constructed in which Israel is repeatedly presented as the victim, while the actual victims often go unnoticed. This bias is clearly reflected in the language used in news reporting and opinion pieces. Israeli actions are described as Israel “defending” itself, whereas Palestinian efforts to resist or protect themselves are framed as Gaza “attacking” Israel. Such linguistic choices subtly but effectively shape public perception of legitimacy and morality.
Another important factor is contextual omission. Much of the coverage begins at moments of escalation, such as rocket fire or sudden attacks, without adequately addressing the broader structural realities of occupation, blockade, and long-standing power asymmetries. By stripping events of their historical and political context, violence is portrayed as sudden or irrational rather than as part of a prolonged and deeply rooted conflict.
Visual framing further reinforces this imbalance. Israeli casualties are often individualized and humanized, shown as innocent civilian deaths with personal stories and faces. In contrast, Palestinian deaths are frequently presented in large numbers and anonymous images, reducing human suffering to statistics. This repeated pattern conditions audiences to emotionally side with Israel, while Palestinian loss is normalized and treated as routine news rather than a humanitarian tragedy.
Would you consider Israel one of the most effective actors in aligning its media narrative with broader Western foreign policy discourse? If so, how is this alignment sustained?
Yes, Israel is one of the most experienced actors in aligning its media narrative with Western foreign policy discourse, and it has done so in a highly methodical way. Its close and long-standing alliance with the United States has allowed Israel to mirror Washington’s strategic language so closely that, over time, their narrative styles have become almost indistinguishable. Tel Aviv consistently frames its actions using concepts that already resonate within Western policy thinking, such as counterterrorism, self-defense, democracy under threat, and shared civilizational values. Because these frameworks are familiar, Israeli messaging appears legitimate and normalized rather than exceptional, aligning seamlessly with how Western states justify their own military actions.
This is reiterated through strong institutional ties with Western governments, think tanks, media outlets, and policy elites. Israeli officials and military spokespersons are often the first and most accessible sources during moments of escalation, allowing them to shape the initial narrative, which is crucial because first frames tend to endure even when later evidence challenges them. Tel Aviv has also invested heavily in professional public diplomacy and coordinated digital communication strategies that are fast, disciplined, and tailored specifically for Western audiences. In contrast, Palestinian narratives remain fragmented, under-resourced, and structurally marginalized. Ultimately, this alignment is sustained by power asymmetries. Western media systems privilege state actors, security frameworks, and strategic allies, making Israeli perspectives more readily accepted as authoritative, while Palestinian voices are frequently treated as secondary or emotional rather than political.
How can the asymmetry in media representation of Palestinian civilian casualties be explained from an institutional or political economy of media perspective?
Mainstream media organizations tend to operate within power centers that privilege state actors, official sources, and geopolitical allies. Since Israel is closely aligned with Western governments, its narratives and civilian losses receive greater institutional legitimacy and visibility. From a sourcing perspective, Western media rely heavily on Israeli cabinet officials, military spokespersons, and Western diplomatic sources, all of whom are seen as credible and authoritative. Palestinian civilians, on the other hand, lack comparable institutional access and are often mediated through numbers, humanitarian agencies, or brief mentions rather than direct voices. This creates a hierarchy of whose suffering is considered narratively important.
There is also an economic dimension. Media outlets are influenced by advertisers, political pressures, and audience sensitivities within Western markets. Humanizing Israeli civilians aligns more comfortably with dominant political narratives and avoids backlash, whereas sustained, empathetic coverage of Palestinian suffering risks being framed as controversial or politically risky. Additionally, newsroom routines and time pressures favor simplified, security-focused frames. At the end of the day, the world will side with the one that helps you generate money and not the real sufferings.
Has the rise of social media genuinely weakened Western narrative dominance on the Israel–Gaza war, or has it merely shifted the battlefield? How significant is the role of platform algorithms in shaping visibility and suppression of narratives, and can we speak of a form of “geopolitical algorithmic bias”?
No, in my view, the Western narrative has not weakened. Based on personal observation, there is significantly less information about Gaza circulating on social media today, and public engagement has sharply declined. Very few accounts or pages now consistently report on Gaza, and even during the peak of the war, coverage from the Palestinian perspective was far more limited compared to the Israeli side.
This imbalance was not organic. During the height of the conflict, a large number of social media accounts aligned with Western and Israeli narratives emerged and actively shaped the information environment. At the same time, platforms played a decisive role in containing Gaza-related content. Meta, in particular, restricted or suppressed accounts that reported on Gaza. Even when accounts were not outright blocked, their reach was systematically reduced. Certain keywords, such as “Gaza,” “Palestine,” “genocide,” and “war,” were effectively penalized. Posts using these terms saw a sharp decline in visibility, and in many cases, entire accounts experienced reach suppression.
Meanwhile, content supporting Israel consistently received higher visibility and engagement. Israel also strategically leveraged influencers who emphasise historical narratives, ensuring sustained exposure across platforms. At one point, even my own feed was dominated by pro-Israeli content, despite no active engagement with it. This clearly tells how deeply the system has been conditioned through algorithms and narrative reinforcement. Ultimately, the Western narrative prevailed, not because it faced no resistance, but because platform governance, algorithmic control, and coordinated messaging ensured that alternative perspectives were gradually silenced or exhausted. And that narrative continues to dominate today.
Given the normalization of media warfare, is journalistic neutrality still achievable, or has it become more of a professional myth than a practical reality?
I don’t believe truly neutral journalism is possible in the current political climate. While independent and investigative journalists continue to try to uphold journalistic integrity, they are operating within systems dominated by powerful states, media corporations, and political interests that actively push their own agendas. Journalists who expose inconvenient truths increasingly face intimidation, persecution, or imprisonment across different regions, including Western countries, parts of the Arab world, and elsewhere. According to reports by organizations such as Reporters Without Borders, governments are not only pressuring journalists to align with official narratives but, in some cases, financially incentivizing the spread of misleading or false information. In this environment, producing accurate and independent news becomes extremely difficult. Even when truthful reporting does emerge, it is often quickly overwhelmed by propaganda and dominant narratives. As a result, journalism as a public service is slowly being eroded to preserve power and sustain political narratives rather than inform the public.