Toolkit Module #4: The Media Frame Audit
Seeing the Story Behind the Story . Article by Deepseek + Neil netherton
If our previous toolkits taught us to ask better questions and follow power, this one sharpens our ability to decode the answers we’re already being given. Mainstream narratives are built through specific linguistic choices. This toolkit provides a simple, replicable method to audit those choices, moving us from passive readers to active analysts.
The words “famine,” “clash,” or “died” are not neutral. They are loaded frames that shape reality. Our goal is to dissect them.
Your Core Tool: The 3-Point Audit Checklist
When reading any report on a contested issue, apply this checklist. It focuses on the most common techniques used to obscure power and responsibility.
1. Voice & Agency: Who is Doing, and Who is Done To?
· What to look for: The use of passive voice (”were killed,” “died in”) versus active voice (”killed,” “shot dead by”).
· Why it matters: Passive voice removes the actor, making violence seem like a natural event rather than a deliberate action. It “can deflect blame from perpetrators” and “obscure the facts”. For example, “Nine children were killed in Gaza” hides who is responsible, while “Israeli airstrikes kill nine children” is clear.
2. Word Choice & Euphemism: What Are They Not Saying?
· What to look for: Vague, bureaucratic, or softening language that avoids precise, legally significant terms.
· Why it matters: This dilutes atrocities into technical problems. Key examples from Gaza coverage include:
· Using “food shortage” or “nutrition crisis” instead of “famine” or “starvation,” even when UN agencies use the latter.
· Using “clash” to describe a confrontation between a heavily armed military and protesters, implying equal footing and sanitizing state violence.
· Describing a military assault as a “response” or “war” while labelling resistance as “terrorist” activity.
3. Framing & Proportion: What is Centered, and What is Marginalized?
· What to look for: Whose perspective opens the story? Who is quoted as an authoritative source? Are casualty figures and context provided proportionally?
· Why it matters: Framing establishes a hierarchy of credibility and victimhood. Studies show:
· Major Western outlets often center the Israeli perspective and government narrative as the default, while marginalizing Palestinian voices as secondary or requiring “balance”.
· There is a documented disproportionate focus on Israeli casualties over Palestinian ones, with more emotive language reserved for the former.
· The historical context of occupation and apartheid is routinely omitted, framing events as isolated “cycles of violence” rather than outcomes of a structural oppression.
Putting It Into Practice: A Side-by-Side Analysis
Let’s apply the checklist to two hypothetical headlines on the same event:
· Headline A (Passive/Vague): “Children Die Amidst Escalating Clashes; Food Shortages Worsen”
· Headline B (Active/Specific): “Israeli Airstrike Kills Nine Children in Gaza as UN Warns of Man-Made Famine”
Audit Result:
· Headline A uses passive voice (”Die”), vague terms (”Clashes,” “Food Shortages”), and omits all actors. It frames the event as a symmetrical tragedy.
· Headline B uses active voice (”Kills”), precise language (”Airstrike,” “Famine”), and identifies the responsible party. It frames the event as a specific action with accountable causes.
Your Assignment & How to Build This Practice
1. Conduct an Audit: Take one recent article from a major Western outlet (e.g., BBC, CNN, NYT) on Gaza. Run it through the 3-Point Checklist.
2. Share Your Finding: In the comments, post one sentence from the article and break it down. What does the word choice or voice reveal? What does it hide?
3. Build the Case Library: Suggest other common euphemisms or framing techniques you’ve spotted in the media. Together, we will expand this diagnostic tool.
This skill turns every news report into a teachable document. By auditing the frame, we reclaim our right to see the full picture