Growing up in Iran, where media is controlled by censorship and propaganda, I once idealized the West’s free press. I accepted Western mainstream narratives at face value, consuming news from a dominant-hegemonic position, as Stuart Hall (1999) described. However, over the past five years, my relationship with Western media has shifted.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, I observed censorship tactics similar to those in Iran: A single narrative dominated, and anyone who questioned it was harshly ostracized. This led me to engage with the media more critically, shifting toward what Hall terms a "negotiated" consumption. I discovered that a significant portion of mainstream news funding comes from industries such as pharmaceutical companies (Columbia Journalism Review). In North America, these companies also sponsor scientific research, which may create conflicts of interest in both the studies and how they are reported. This realization highlighted the potential impact of corporate influence on the objectivity of both news and scientific findings (Fabbri, Lai, Grundy, & Bero, 2019).

As my skepticism grew, I shifted from negotiated consumption to what Hall calls “oppositional reading,” ultimately rejecting mainstream outlets. This shift was cemented during the Gaza conflict when I witnessed Western media consistently favor Israel, downplaying Palestinian suffering. A 2023 Intercept analysis revealed a pro-Israel bias in major U.S. outlets (Middle East Eye). The Centre for Media Monitoring (2024) showed a similar trend, with Israeli perspectives dominating at a 5:1 ratio (Muslim Council of Britain).

I became acutely aware of how, as Hall (1999) explains, "the media are part of the dominant means of ideological production," reinforcing power structures. I have been reevaluating everything I absorbed from mainstream media with a more critical perspective ever since. I am hardly alone. Global studies reveal a growing trend of declining trust in media, particularly following conflict in Gaza and the ongoing war in Ukraine (World Economic Forum, 2023). A recent 2023 Statistics Canada report echoed this trend, with only 15% of Canadians trusting the media highly (Statistics Canada, 2023).

As many have turned to independent media, however, a new risk has emerged: these platforms are often not bound by journalistic principles such as fact-checking, ethical standards, or editorial oversight. Lacking scrutiny, they can be easily exploited by bad actors.

Since October 7, 2023, I have frequently observed proxies and apologists of the Islamic Republic of Iran manipulating trusted independent media, using seemingly anti-war and progressive rhetoric to ultimately advance the regime's interests at the expense of the Iranian people. These individuals subtly embed regime-favored narratives within broader opposition movements, using legitimate concerns about Western intervention to deflect attention from the regime's own actions.

​

This infiltration raises critical concerns: as more people flock to independent media, we face the risk of foreign influence from actors like China, Russia, and Iran, who may exploit these platforms to sway public opinion and policy. As global reliance on alternative media grows, particularly in the face of mainstream mistrust, what does this predict for the future of international conflicts? Information warfare is becoming a central battleground, with independent media potentially serving as both a weapon and a target. The question remains: how will this influence shape the next global conflict, and are we prepared for the consequences of media manipulation by foreign states?

​

References

• Fabbri, A., Lai, A., Grundy, Q., & Bero, L. A. (2019). The influence of industry sponsorship on the research agenda: A scoping review. American Journal of Public Health, 109(11), e1-e9.

• Hall, S. (1999). Encoding/Decoding.

• Middle East Eye. (2023).

• Muslim Council of Britain. (2024). Centre for Media

• Monitoring: Media Bias Gaza 2023-24.

• Statistics Canada. (2023).
  World Economic Forum. (2023).