In the 21st century, information is more accessible than ever—just one click away. Yet this unprecedented access is often mistaken for genuine awareness, knowledge, or wisdom. But what’s rarely acknowledged is that the same abundance of information can just as easily lead to confusion, ignorance, and manipulation. Knowledge has long been wielded as a tool of power. Whether through the selective narration of historical events or the strategic framing of current affairs, those in positions of influence have consistently shaped how and what information is produced and distributed to serve their own interests. In today’s media landscape, this dynamic persists in a more systemic and dangerous manner.
This article examines how media institutions construct narratives through deliberate disinformation, not to inform the public, but to protect and promote the agendas of a privileged few. It explores how language manipulation, reliance on biased sources, and self-serving contextualization are used to distort reality and mislead audiences. Rather than educating the masses, such practices fuel division, obscure truth, and undermine democratic values. The article further highlights the consequences of these disinformation campaigns and advocates for impartial, transparent journalism as a cornerstone of global democracy.
Language as a Tool of Distortion: Media often uses selective vocabulary in specific contexts to construct intended narratives and propagate desired messages. Certain terminologies and jargon are used as tools to distort ground realities and construct specific self-serving narratives. This can be best explained through “Framing Theory”, which proposes that the media, through its language and contextualization, provides a frame to its audience through which they see and assess any information. One event can be framed in different ways to propagate different messages. Consider how Western media always refers to adversarial governments as “regimes,” subtly suggesting autocracy and hostility. In coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza, Israeli deaths are labeled as ‘massacres’ while Palestinian casualties are reduced to a mere ‘death toll’. Palestinian retaliation is framed as ‘escalation’, whereas military advancements of Israel are called ‘responses’. The term ‘collateral damage’ is Western media favorite jargon to sanitize civilian deaths caused by USA or NATO, while similar acts are labelled as ‘massacre’ and ‘carnage’ if done by Russia, Iran or any other non-NATO state. This linguistic framing is not exclusive to Western media. Russian, Iranian, Chinese or North Korean media use terms like ‘Western intervention’ to justify controversial actions within their borders to mask their own shortcomings. Language, thus, becomes the first weapon in the media’s disinformation arsenal.
Biased Sourcing of Information: The source of information is often more important than its content, a fact that is frequently overlooked. The media uses biased sourcing of information while reporting. From quoting historical events to deciphering current realities, specific sources of information are used to build narratives and propagate biased messages. During Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Western media relied on NATO and Ukrainian sources, while sidelining Russian official sources. Similarly, in Israel’s war on Gaza, the data for civilian casualties, destruction of buildings, hunger indices rely almost exclusively on sources provided by Israeli or US officials. Meanwhile, data from Palestinian authorities or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is heavily discounted or ignored. This pattern extends to historical conflicts like the War on Terror, the Iraq War, or other military misadventures of the United States, where only US official sources are reported. Such selective sourcing reinforces dominant narratives while marginalizing dissenting voices to shape public perception in favor of power structures.
Self-Interested Contextualization of Events: As the primary narrator of world events, the media has the power to contextualize, frame and propagate the information that best suits its interests. In Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Western media instantly framed it as an aggression and violation of international law while fully ignoring the events that led to the Russian attack, such as the eastward expansion of NATO. Similarly, Hamas' attack on Israel was portrayed as terrorism while decades-long displacement and state-sponsored terrorism by Israel that provoked this attack were sidelined. When reporting political and socio-economic unrest in South Asia, Africa or South America, Western media rarely acknowledges the colonial roots of such disruption and frames it as governance failure of these states. The ‘Propaganda Model’ by Herman and Chomsky explains this selective reporting and contextualization in the most suitable way. It explains that the media communicates messages and symbols to the public in a way that serves the interests of the powerful groups, and always masks the other that poses threat to it. Unfortunately, this is a universal reality, not particular to Western media. State-driven media houses in authoritarian governments primarily operate on the ‘Propaganda Model’.
Consequences of Disinformation– From Narrative Building to Policy Formulation: The consequences of disinformation are further reaching than mere narrative building or the spread of a temporary propaganda. In democracies, where states operate on public consent, the media builds narratives that change the public opinion and manufacture that consent. U.S. foreign policy towards Russia, China and Iran has long been shaped and backed by public opinion shaped by years of media backed propagandas. Similarly, Israel's expansionist policies, widely criticized as occupationist towards the Palestinians and regional actors, go largely unquestioned by its public due to years of disinformation campaigns run by the media. The same tactics are being used by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea to justify their own foreign policy stances. This aligns with the Constructivist point of view, which considers realities not to be objective, but constructed based on self-interest. Alexander Wendt, the chief architect of Constructivism, proposed that international politics is framed by constructed ideas, not objective realities. This demonstrates how ‘Framing Theory’ and the ‘Propaganda Model’ are used to construct the realities instead of simply depicting one. The information utilized by the media to serve the interests of the selected few propels the idea of constructivism, which not only constructs realities but provides foundations on which policies of the state run for years and shape the future of the world. Disinformation not only provides the basis for policy formulation and implementation but also serves to justify certain acts. The widespread public acquiescence to human rights violations during the 'War on Terror,' the Iraq War, and the current war in Gaza is a direct consequence of pervasive media disinformation campaigns.
The weaponization of language, the reliance on biased sources, and the self-serving contextualization of events are not merely academic concerns. They are the tools of a system that build consent and construct a reality where human suffering can be normalized and democratic ideals scraped. The media, therefore, face a critical choice: to continue as a mouthpiece for powerful elites, or reclaim its role as the eyes and voice of the people. In an age defined by information, the choice is not trifling—it is fundamental. The fight for a transparent and impartial press is not just about improving media ethics; it is the fight to safeguard the very foundation of a functional global democracy.
