Naturalizing Violence: Media Discourse and the Limits of Journalistic Nationalism

News coverage of cross-border conflict is an essential element of international discourse, constructing national and social identities for global publics. Most journalism studies of border violence have focused on conflict among nations at war. Rarer studies of “friendly” nations have highlighted only news coverage within the dominant nation. This study builds on existing knowledge of journalistic discourse through a cross-national analysis that examines news coverage of the killings of Bangladeshi citizens by Indian Border Security Forces, as reported in major newspapers in both countries. We find that newspapers in the dominant country (India) mostly ignore such extrajudicial killings and vilify the victims, perhaps in line with Indian national interests. Meanwhile, newspapers in the weaker nation (Bangladesh) also downplay the violence through episodic reporting and reliance on official sources. The Bangladeshi coverage, therefore, reflects a more complex and ambivalent orientation, exposing a disconnect between the interests of its government and its citizens. The findings suggest that national political agendas and professional news routines lead on both sides to the naturalization of such violence, at the expense of human rights.