Discursive News Values in the Coverage of the Aftermath of October 7: A Comparative Study of Al Jazeera and The New York Times

This paper examines how journalistic discursive strategies are employed in news coverage of the events following October 7, focusing on how international media construct meaning, legitimacy, and newsworthiness in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict amid intensified violence and global attention. Drawing on a corpus of 50 news articles from Al Jazeera and 50 from The New York Times, this study applies Fairclough’s (2013) social dialectical approach alongside Bednarek and Caple’s (2012) Discursive News Values Analysis to uncover the linguistic mechanisms through which journalists construct newsworthiness. The analysis focuses on how evaluative language, attitudinal positioning, emotionality, and interpersonal stances are mobilised to shape audience perception, influence public sentiment, and advance specific ideological frames. Findings reveal stark differences in the two outlets’ discursive strategies, shaped by divergent socio-cultural norms, political agendas, and institutional values. These patterns not only reflect deep-rooted biases but also risk perpetuating hostility, entrenching narratives of division, and narrowing the space for peace-oriented dialogue. Crucially, the study highlights how such linguistic constructions diminish the prospects for conflict resolution by reinforcing antagonistic frames and undermining empathy across audiences. By critically studying the interplay between language, ideology, and conflict, this paper contributes to the introduction of a news values discourse-based typology in peace journalism, one that reimagines news reporting as a tool for de-escalation, mutual understanding, and sustainable peacebuilding in conflict-ridden contexts.