How US airstrike intel reports became a tool for partisan media: Bias Breakdown

After the U.S. airstrikes on Iran on June 21, the media’s portrayal of the attack quickly diverged. Left-leaning outlets described the bombing as a dangerous escalation of a Middle East conflict, with some suggesting the United States had entered Israel’s war with Iran. Coverage largely questioned the legality of President Donald Trump’s unilateral decision to order airstrikes and whether they should have been authorized by Congress.

In contrast, right-leaning outlets praised the strikes as a bold success. Headlines defended Trump’s authority, crediting him with preventing a dangerous escalation by neutralizing Iran’s nuclear threat.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

How select intelligence reports were amplified by media

Media outlets selectively amplified different intelligence reports to support their narrative of casting the strikes in a positive or negative light.

Left-leaning media largely pointed to a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency assessment suggesting the strikes caused limited damage, possibly delaying Iran’s nuclear program by only a few months. That report noted above-ground infrastructure was hit, but underground nuclear facilities remained largely intact.

Meanwhile, right-leaning outlets amplified conflicting assessments from the CIA, Israeli Defense Forces and the International Atomic Energy Agency — all of which pointed to “severe” or “significant” long-term damage. Some reports claimed the strikes set Iran back years.

Though all the reports are preliminary, each side emphasized the intelligence that best supported its political framing, either downplaying or emphasizing the impact.

Media power and influence in moments of crisis

When the facts are still emerging during major global events — and official intelligence is incomplete or even contradictory — the way those facts are framed becomes just as influential as the facts themselves.

By selectively emphasizing certain intelligence reports and perspectives, media outlets with different leanings built competing narratives, casting Trump either as a reckless warmonger or a strategic peacemaker. And Americans were paying attention. Fox News recorded its third-highest ratings ever for a Saturday, while CNN and MSNBC also saw a surge in weekend viewership.

But those who consumed coverage from only one source may have come away with impressions that were skewed, incomplete or misleading. Instead of informing their audiences, major networks from the left and right often guided them down a path of persuasion — where the facts were filtered through a partisan lens.