Articles analysed
—
across outlets
Comparative media analysis
"From the river to the sea" — who says it, and how outlets frame it
The same nine words mean very different things depending on who is quoted. This dashboard compares how major international outlets cover the phrase when attributed to pro-Palestinian protesters versus when attributed to Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, using sentiment and framing labels applied to 47 articles across 27 outlets.
Avg sentiment — Protesters
—
— articles
Avg sentiment — Israeli officials
—
— articles
Sentiment gap
—
Protester minus Israeli-official avg
How to read sentiment
−1.0
+1.0
−1 strongly condemns the speaker's use
0 neutral / balanced
+1 defends or endorses the speaker's use
Sentiment is scored separately for each attribution group: it measures the article's tone toward the specific speaker's use of the phrase. An article condemning protester use and an article condemning Netanyahu's use both receive negative scores in their respective groups.
Sentiment by attribution group
Mean and distribution of article-level sentiment
Framing label distribution
How each group's coverage is editorially framed
Coverage volume over time
Monthly article counts by attribution group
Outlet-level sentiment comparison
For outlets that covered both attribution groups
Article-level coverage
Click any column header to sort. Click a row to see the excerpt.
| Date | Outlet | Title | Attribution | Speaker | Framing | Sentiment | Link |
|---|
Methodology & limitations
Source selection
Articles were collected from major international outlets via targeted web search across English-language coverage published since 1 January 2024. Each outlet is capped at 3 articles to prevent over-representation. Where outlets blocked automated retrieval (e.g. Reuters robots policy, Haaretz paywall), they may be under-represented.
Sentiment scoring
Sentiment is a manual, article-level judgement on a −1 to +1 scale based on (a) how the article characterises the phrase, (b) tone toward the attributed speaker, (c) prominence of counterpoints, and (d) headline framing. It is not automated NLP. Scores within each attribution group are independent — a −1 in the protester group means the article condemns protester use; a −1 in the Israeli-official group means it condemns Netanyahu's use.
Framing labels
Condemnatory — article treats the use as antisemitic, genocidal, or otherwise unacceptable.
Contextualizing — article presents competing interpretations without clear editorial verdict.
Neutral — straight news, minimal editorial framing.
Sympathetic — article defends or normalises the speaker's use.
What this is not
This is a comparative media-framing exercise, not an endorsement of any position on the phrase, the conflict, or the speakers. The phrase is politically contested: many Jewish communities experience it as a call for the elimination of Israel, while many Palestinians and supporters describe it as a call for equality across the territory. Both readings appear in the articles below.