Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

This research compares UK and Irish media coverage of Gaza since 2023 through a development lens, finding UK reporting is more self-referential and state-focused, while Irish media foregrounds humanitarian impact, and argues that this is shaped by differing colonial histories and political contexts.

Paper long abstract

This research compares how UK and Irish (Republic of Ireland) mainstream media—primarily online newspapers and major state-governed media platforms such as the BBC and RTÉ—have framed Gaza through a development lens since October 2023. Focusing on humanitarian aid, civilian protection, reconstruction, and international responsibility, the study analyses dominant patterns across public broadcasters and leading national outlets rather than isolated headlines. It highlights differences in narrative priorities, sourcing practices, and the relationship between media framing and national political context, situating these contrasts within the distinct colonial histories of Britain and Ireland. Britain’s legacy as a major colonial power, and Ireland’s history as a country colonised by Britain with no comparable identity as a coloniser, continue to shape public attitudes and media sensibilities in both contexts.

A notable feature of UK coverage is its strongly self-referential character. Debates over language choices (such as “war” versus “conflict”), sourcing, and journalistic impartiality—particularly in relation to the BBC—have become prominent media stories in their own right. This politicises humanitarian reporting, at times shifting attention away from lived conditions in Gaza toward discussions of media regulation, balance, and credibility.

Analysis suggests that while development actors such as UN agencies and NGOs appear regularly in UK media, they are frequently counterbalanced by official state voices, reinforcing a framing of aid as operational, conditional, and politically constrained. In contrast, Irish media more consistently foregrounds humanitarian impact, emphasising civilian casualties, health system collapse, displacement, famine risk, and barriers to aid delivery.