Narratives of Conflict on TikTok: Comparing the EU and China’s Discursive Strategies in the Israel–Hamas Conflict
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24197/2repqy04Palabras clave:
tiktok, israel–hamas conflict, discursive strategies, european union, chinaResumen
This study compares the narrative strategies of two international media outlets with contrasting institutional profiles: CGTN Europe, a state-run channel affiliated with the Chinese government, and Euronews, a pan-European broadcaster currently under private ownership, with an editorial line that remains independent. Based on a mixed-methods approach combining lexical analysis using TF-IDF, thematic clustering with BERTopic, and qualitative video analysis (including shot-by-shot examination), the study identifies key differences in the representation of the Israel–Hamas conflict on TikTok. CGTN Europe constructs a narrative that emphasizes the humanitarian dimension of the conflict, highlighting the impact on the civilian population in Gaza and advocating for a ceasefire, in alignment with the diplomatic positions expressed by the Chinese government in international forums. Euronews, by contrast, tends to adopt a more diverse discursive strategy, focused on the evolution of events and modular coverage rather than emotional repetition. This approach reflects its institutional commitment to editorial pluralism and informational neutrality. At the same time, securitization frames are also present, particularly in conflict-related contexts, where issues such as institutional stability, public order, and international law are emphasized. TikTok, with its algorithmic and emotionally driven logic, thus emerges as a strategic space in which media actors project micro-narratives adapted to the platform.
Descargas
Referencias
Balzacq, T. (2011): Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. Routledge.
Bassou, Abdelkader (2024): «The EU’s Position on the Israel–Palestine Conflict: Norms, Contradictions, and Geopolitics», in https://ecfr.eu/article/the-eus-position-on-the-israel-palestine-conflict (date of consultation: 22/05/25).
Belfer Center (2020): «Governing Cyberspace: State Control vs. The Multistakeholder Model»,in https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/governing-cyberspace-state-control-vs-multistakeholder-model (date of consultation: 22/05/25).
Bjola, Corneliu y Holmes, Marcus (2015): Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. London, Routledge.
Callahan, William A. (2015): China Dreams: 20 Visions of the Future. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Cull, Nicholas J. (2008): «Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories». The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616(1), 31-54.
Cull, Nicholas J. (2009): Public Diplomacy: Lessons from the Past. Los Angeles, Figueroa Press.
Deibert, Ronald (2020): Reset: Reclaiming the Internet for Civil Society. Toronto: House of Anansi Press.
de Vreese, Claes H. y Boomgaarden, Hajo G. (2006): «Media effects on public opinion about the enlargement of the European Union». Journal of Common Market Studies 44(2), 419-436.
Ellul, Jacques (1965): Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York, Vintage Books.
Entman, Robert M. (1993): «Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm». Journal of Communication 43(4), 51-58.
Freedman, Lawrence (2006): The Transformation of Strategic Affairs. London, IISS Adelphi Paper 379.
Gillespie, Tarleton (2018): Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven, Yale University Press.
Grootendorst, M. (2022): BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure.
Hallahan, Kirk et al. (2007): «Defining Strategic Communication». International Journal of Strategic Communication 1(1), 3-35.
Harold Nicolson (1963): Diplomacy. Oxford University Press, Londres.
Jacqué, P. y Ricard, P. (2024): «War in Gaza: The European Union’s Diplomatic Failure», in https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/06/05/war-in-gaza-the-eu-s-diplomatic-failure_6673792_4.html (date of consultation: 22/05/25).
Lasswell, Harold D. (1927): Propaganda Technique in the World War. New York, Knopf.
Lin, J., & de Kloet, J. (2023): «TikTok and the platformisation from China: Geopolitical anxieties, repetitive creativities and future imaginaries». Media, Culture & Society.
Lippmann, Walter (1922): Public Opinion. New York, Harcourt Brace.
Macdonald, Scot (2007): Propaganda and Information Warfare in the Twenty-First Century. London, Routledge.
McDonald, John W. y Diamond, Louise (1996): Multi-Track Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace. West Hartford, Kumarian Press.
Melissen, Jan (2005): The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. London, Palgrave Macmillan.
Miskimmon, A., O’Loughlin, B., & Roselle, L. (2013): Strategic Narratives: Communication Power and the New World Order. Routledge.
Nye, Joseph S. (2004): Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York, Public Affairs.
Papacharissi, Z. (2015): Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
Repnikova, Maria (2022): Chinese Soft Power. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Roselle, Laura, Miskimmon, Alister y O’Loughlin, Ben (2014): «Strategic Narrative: A New Means to Understand Soft Power». Media, War & Conflict 7(1), 70-84.
Rosemain, M. (2021): «Egypt’s Sawiris to sell struggling broadcaster Euronews to Alpac Capital», in https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/egypts-sawiris-sell-struggling-broadcaster-euronews-alpac-capital-2021-12-17 (date of consultation: 22/05/25).
Saez, P., & Bryant, J. (2023): Understanding the role of narratives in humanitarian policy change. ODI Humanitarian Policy Group Working Paper.
Su, Alice y Liu, Yuhan (2023): «Digital Diplomacy and the Soft Power of Europe». Global Media and China 8(1), 13-28.
Tocci, Nathalie (2007): «Profiling Normative Foreign Policy: The European Union and its Global Partners». CEPS Working Document No. 279.
U.S. National Defense University (2015): An Introduction to Public Opinion Warfare, Psychological Warfare and Legal Warfare. China Strategic Perspectives No. 13. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press.
Woolley, S. C., & Howard, P. N. (2019): Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians, and Political Manipulation on Social Media. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Zaharna, Rhonda S. (2010): Battles to Bridges: U.S. Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy after 9/11. London, Palgrave Macmillan.
Zeng, Jinghan (2021): «Artificial Intelligence and China’s Strategic Narrative». International Affairs 97(6), 1665-1682.
Zhao, Y. (2008): Communication in China: Political Economy, Power, and Conflict. Rowman & Littlefield.
Zhou, Xiaoyan et al. (2021): «Public Health Communication on TikTok: A Content Analysis of COVID-19 Videos from Official Accounts». Health Communication 36(13), 1611-1620.
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Yahan Tang, Sara Infante Pineda, Rut Martínez Borda
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Todos los trabajos publicados en la revista Revista de Estudios Europeos se distribuyen bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0).
Los autores y autoras continúan como propietarios de sus trabajos, y pueden volver a publicar sus artículos en otro medio sin tener que solicitar autorización, siempre y cuando indiquen que el trabajo fue publicado originariamente en la Revista de Estudios Europeos.
Los contenidos publicados no representan el pensamiento de los responsables de la revista, sino el de sus autores.