CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF BASSEM YOUSAF AND MORGAN’S DISCUSSION ON THE ISRAEL-HAMAS CONFLICT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MEDIA FRAMING AND CULTURAL VIEWPOINTS

Abstract

The media plays a pivotal role in shaping public perception of geopolitical conflicts, often reflecting underlying cultural ideologies and political agendas. This study conducts a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of the televised discussion between Egyptian satirist Bassem Youssef and British journalist Piers Morgan on the Israel-Hamas conflict, aiming to explore the contrasting media framings and embedded cultural viewpoints expressed during the exchange. The objective is to uncover how language, power, and ideology interact within media discourse to influence audience understanding of complex international issues. The primary data consists of the full transcript and video footage of Youssef and Morgan’s interview, which gained significant global attention for its contentious and emotionally charged content. Purposeful sampling was employed to select this discourse due to its viral reach and clear representation of divergent cultural and political stances on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The analysis is grounded in Van Dijk’s approach of CDA. The findings reveal that Youssef strategically employs satire, irony, and intertextuality to challenge dominant Western narratives, while Morgan adopts a journalistic framing rooted in liberal humanism and Western moral assumptions. The discursive tension illustrates how media framing can either reinforce or subvert hegemonic ideologies, depending on the speaker’s cultural positioning and rhetorical approach. This study contributes to the broader field of media studies by highlighting how cross-cultural dialogue in news media can both expose and reproduce global power asymmetries.