Competing Narratives and Disinformation in Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital Explosion: A Comparative Critical Discourse Analysis of I24news and Al-Mayadeen English

Abstract

Critical Discourse Analysis offers a framework to understand how media discourse can influence public perceptions of conflict, particularly in contested narratives and disinformation. Explosion at Gaza’s Baptist Hospital on 17 October 2023 produced contrasting stories. I24NEWS and Al Mayadeen English, each present conflicting interpretations of responsibility, morality, and institutional credibility. This study aims at exploring how these reports create ideological meaning by means of language and discourse strategies, using Fairclough’s textual analysis, Entman’s framing theory, Van Leeuwen’s inclusion and exclusion, Van Dijk’s ideological square, examining agency, framing, representation, and power embedded in discourse. The study attempts to identify linguistic patterns that construct ideological bias, explore framing that shapes narrative direction, find out inclusion/exclusion strategies in the representation of actors, and investigate ideological polarization between Israeli and Palestinian actors. They are based on the hypothesis that each outlet employs distinctive discourse strategies. Generally, I24NEWS foregrounds Israeli authority, whereas Al Mayadeen English emphasizes Palestinian victimhood and moral condemnation. Methodologically, the research applies qualitative CDA at micro-, meso-, and macro-levels, followed by quantitative analysis and systematic comparison. The findings indicate that both reports produce polarized ideological positions through selective lexical choices, strategic framing, and asymmetrical representation. The study's main conclusion is that media discourse acts as a way to create and spread ideologies. It shapes how the public understands the hospital explosion, using existing power structures, disinformation, and global policy reactions..