Western media is once again under scrutiny for perceived bias in the way it reports wars involving their own nations. The latest flashpoint is the deeply tragic February 28, 2026 strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ Elementary School in Minab, Iran, during the initial phase of the U.S.-Israel military campaign against Iran.
According to Iranian state media and health officials, the attack killed at least 175 people, including about 160 children—mostly girls aged between eight and ten—as well as a two-month-old baby. Dozens more were injured.
Videos later verified by international media outlets showed rescue workers combing through rubble, school bags scattered among the debris, and scorch marks lining the walls of what had been a place of learning.
Iranian authorities quickly labeled the strike a deliberate war crime. U.S. officials, however, rejected claims that civilians were intentionally targeted. The United States, through Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, said Washington was investigating reports of civilian harm while also accusing Iran of using the incident for propaganda purposes.
Still, questions remain. Given the level of intelligence sophistication attributed to both the United States and Israel, some observers find it difficult to accept that such a strike could have occurred unintentionally.
These are the same militaries that have previously demonstrated extraordinary precision in locating and eliminating high-profile targets, including the Iranian Supreme Leader and other senior figures. It is therefore difficult for some to understand how that same precision could fail when a girls’ school is involved.
Some reports indicate that the school was located adjacent to a naval base belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), raising the possibility that it was struck as collateral damage during an attack on nearby military infrastructure.
Yet even the language of “collateral damage” becomes deeply troubling when applied to a school full of young girls. It suggests that the loss of civilian life was unavoidable—an idea that many find morally unsettling.
The Minab incident has since become a focal point for broader accusations of bias in Western media coverage of the expanding US-Israel-Iran conflict, which intensified after Iran launched attacks against US and Israeli targets in February 2026. The conflict has since involved U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian military installations, with Iran responding through missile and drone attacks.
Critics argue that coverage of the Minab strike illustrates patterns of selective framing, reliance on certain sources, and the use of language that can subtly shape public perception. In many cases, Western-aligned actions are reported using the passive voice, which obscures responsibility, while adversaries are described in more direct terms.
For instance, a headline by CNN described the Minab incident by stating that a “strike hit” the school, without immediately identifying who carried it out. By contrast, coverage of Iranian missile strikes on Israeli residential buildings explicitly named Iran as the actor.
Critics argue that such choices soften accountability for Western-aligned forces while directly implicating their adversaries.
This linguistic pattern appears throughout coverage of the broader war. US and Israeli strikes are frequently described as “precision operations” targeting military infrastructure, whereas Iranian responses are often labeled “indiscriminate” or even “terrorist acts.” Analysts argue that these distinctions shape public understanding of the conflict and reinforce particular geopolitical narratives.
At the same time, it is worth acknowledging another interpretation. What critics describe as bias may also reflect a form of patriotism within Western media systems. News organizations operating within those societies may see little value in portraying their own forces in a manner that undermines national interests during wartime.
This raises a difficult but important question: what is the objective of reporting on one’s own military operations in ways that portray national forces in the worst possible light? For many media institutions, the balance between accountability and national loyalty remains a complex editorial challenge.
Editorial decisions—who is interviewed, which images are shown, and how events are framed—are never neutral. They reflect underlying judgments about the story being told. In times of war, those judgments often determine who is portrayed as the aggressor and who is seen as the victim. As the old saying goes, truth is often the first casualty of war.
For African media houses, there may be lessons in this moment. When reporting on military operations involving their own national forces, journalists must also consider the broader implications of language, framing, and attribution.
Western outlets rarely portray their soldiers as reckless actors responsible for mass civilian casualties. Instead, they employ careful wording that emphasizes uncertainty, investigation, or the fog of war.
The Minab school strike therefore raises not only questions about the tragedy itself, but also about the global practice of war reporting. If there is one lesson to draw, it is that the language of journalism carries immense power. The words chosen to describe violence can shape how the world understands it—and how history ultimately remembers it.