Measuring the Gap Between Media Coverage and Public Information Demand: Evidence from the 2026 Lebanon Conflict

The modern news cycle has been fundamentally reshaped by the rapid exchange of information online. As a result, media framing shifts dynamically as new information, political responses, and social reactions emerge. Understanding how these narratives form, propagate, and evolve is essential for interpreting public discourse during moments of crisis. In this study, we examine the temporal and semantic dynamics of reporting for violent and catastrophic events using a large-scale corpus of 126,602 news articles collected from online publishers. We quantify narrative change through publication volume, semantic drift, semantic dispersion, and term relevance. Our results show that sudden events of impact exhibit structured and predictable news-cycle patterns characterized by rapid surges in coverage, early semantic drift, and gradual declines toward the baseline. In addition, our results indicate the terms that are driving the temporal patterns.

Landslides often hit newsstands due to their destructive and potentially fatal effects. News are a valuable source of information for creating or enriching disaster databases and for expediting media-based studies of the dynamics of media attention. To accomplish that, news datasets must be filtered, geolocated and validated. This paper focuses on how landslides around the world are reported in German newspapers. We analyse almost 55k news articles about 4.5k news events in a 25-year period, compare it with external measures of countries' susceptibility to landslides and provide insights, e.g. the overreporting of Southern and Western Europe, to foster further studies on inequalities in media attention to international disasters.

This study examines how different artificial intelligence architectures interpret sentiment in conflict-related media discourse, using the 2023 Gaza War as a case study. Drawing on a corpus of 10,990 Arabic news headlines (Eleraqi 2026), the research conducts a comparative analysis between three large language models and six fine-tuned Arabic BERT models. Rather than evaluating accuracy against a single human-annotated gold standard, the study adopts an epistemological approach that treats sentiment classification as an interpretive act produced by model architectures. To quantify systematic differences across models, the analysis employs information-theoretic and distributional metrics, including Shannon Entropy, Jensen-Shannon Distance, and a Variance Score measuring deviation from aggregate model behavior. The results reveal pronounced and non-random divergence in sentiment distributions. Fine-tuned BERT models, particularly MARBERT, exhibit a strong bias toward neutral classifications, while LLMs consistently amplify negative sentiment, with LLaMA-3.1-8B showing near-total collapse into negativity. Frame-conditioned analysis further demonstrates that GPT-4.1 adjusts sentiment judgments in line with narrative frames (e.g., humanitarian, legal, security), whereas other LLMs display limited contextual modulation. These findings suggest that the choice of model constitutes a choice of interpretive lens, shaping how conflict narratives are algorithmically framed and emotionally evaluated. The study contributes to media studies and computational social science by foregrounding algorithmic discrepancy as an object of analysis and by highlighting the risks of treating automated sentiment outputs as neutral or interchangeable measures of media tone in contexts of war and crisis.