Lesson Report:
## Title & Synopsis
**Title:** Framing Conflict and Institutional Bias: Media Coverage of the Houthis in the Red Sea
**Synopsis:**
This session focused on how institutional bias and strategic framing shape our understanding of international conflicts, using the Houthis in Yemen/Red Sea as the central case study. Students collected and compared non‑Western news coverage with U.S. think-tank/State Department sources, and examined how language, imagery, and labels such as “Operation Prosperity Guardian� and “Battle of the Promised Conquest� construct competing “ground truths.� The lesson was also intended to bridge into students’ individual research projects and a forthcoming 1.5–2 page situational report assignment (announced but not yet described in detail in this transcript).
—
## Attendance
Number of students explicitly mentioned as absent in this session: **4**
– **Hermine** – noted as having attended briefly at the start of the course and then “vanishedâ€�; appears to be a longer-term absence.
– **Idina** – “also disappearedâ€�; seems not to be attending currently.
– **Beknazar** – marked absent.
– **Ayn Azik** – noted as “gonna be absent for a little whileâ€�; planned extended absence.
All other named students during roll (Albino, Azamath, Corona, Zoe, Sophie, Nino, Alain, Mookadas, Altanai, Zamira, Adam) were present.
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with Detailed Activities)
### 1. Opening, Administrative Notes, and Lesson Objectives
– **Contextual opening:**
– Brief reference to the university’s **multicultural week** (food, games) as informal small talk to re-engage the class.
– **Missing reading acknowledgment:**
– Instructor **apologized** that the assigned reading “never showed up on e‑course.â€�
– Explanation: recent research deadlines had been “all-consuming,â€� delaying upload of the reading.
– Instructor reassured students that there was still “plentyâ€� to do in class despite the missing reading.
– **Three main goals for the day (as stated at the outset):**
1. **Continue exploring institutional bias** through:
– A focused case study: the **Houthis in the Red Sea**.
– Using that case to illustrate “ground truthâ€� and framing.
2. **Connect the case study** to students’ **individual projects** that they began identifying on Tuesday.
3. **Introduce a 1.5–2 page situational report assignment,** due **one week from today.**
– (Details of the assignment are not given yet in this transcript; only the existence and length/timing are specified.)
– **Framing concept for this “chunkâ€� of the course:**
– Instructor emphasized that for this segment of the course, a key goal is learning how to establish **“ground truthâ€�** on a specific issue.
– This ties back to a recurring semester-long task: **collecting as much unbiased information as possible** and being aware of institutional and narrative biases.
—
### 2. Attendance & Informal Discussion About Missing Students
– **Quick aside about a missing student:**
– Before formal roll, instructor informally asked if anyone knew what happened to **Hermine**, noting she came “for like a weekâ€� and then “vanished.â€�
– **Formal roll call:**
– Instructor went through names, confirming presence or absence.
– As noted above, four students were marked absent; several were confirmed present.
– This also served to **re-establish the classroom community** and highlight patterns of chronic/non‑attendance.
—
### 3. Mini-Lecture: Who Are the Houthis? (Background on the Actor of the Day)
– **Clarification that not everyone knows who the Houthis are:**
– Instructor realized some students were unsure who “the Houthisâ€� are and paused to formally introduce them as “the actor of the day.â€�
– **Basic identification and context:**
– **Location:** Yemen.
– **Role:** The Houthis are the group that:
– Emerged from Yemen’s political turmoil and revolution in the past 5–10 years.
– Are **the group currently in power** / de facto controlling much of the country.
– Students were asked if they had a general idea of “the happenings in Yemen over the past five to ten yearsâ€� (revolution, power struggles, etc.).
– **Language note:**
– Discussion of what the Houthis are called in **Russian**:
– Students suggested “ХуÑ�итыâ€� / “ХуÑ�икиâ€� (transcribed by auto as “Housikiâ€�), which interested the instructor.
– This served as a micro-illustration of how **terminology and naming differ across languages** and might shape perception.
– **Connection back to course themes:**
– The Houthis are presented not just as a conflict actor but as a **case for studying institutional bias** and competing narratives: who labels them what, and why?
—
### 4. Conceptual Frame: Ground Truth and Institutional Bias
– **Reiteration of the “ground truthâ€� goal:**
– The instructor reminded students that a recurring task this semester has been trying to gather **unbiased or less-biased information** about conflicts.
– For this session:
– The **Houthis in the Red Sea** are the focal issue.
– The class will use **two lenses**:
1. Coverage from **non‑Western media**.
2. Coverage from **U.S. think tanks and State Department** sources.
– The aim is to see how **institutional positions** (government, think tanks, different regional media) produce **different “truthsâ€�** about the same actor/event.
—
### 5. Activity 1 – Non‑Western News Scan on the Houthis
**Objective:**
To collect recent **non‑Western media coverage** on the Houthis and begin identifying common themes, recurring frames, and notable omissions.
**Instructions to students:**
– Work **with a partner** (to make the process less tedious).
– **Task:** Find **one news headline** (plus main image if available) about the **Houthis** that:
– Is **no more than one week old**.
– Must be from a **non‑Western source.**
– Examples allowed: **Al Jazeera**, other international or local non‑Western agencies, Russian sources, local Kazakh or regional outlets, etc.
– **Explicitly disallowed:** “Stereotypically Westernâ€� news sources.
– **Geographic/media constraint:**
– “Russian bias we can deal with todayâ€�: Russian outlets are acceptable even though they are also biased; the pedagogical focus is on **contrast with Western coverage**.
– **Technical support:**
– Some students were unsure how to find recent articles.
– Instructor (and a more tech-savvy student, Azamath) demonstrated how to **sort Google results by time** to filter for the last week.
– This was framed as a quick “literacyâ€� upgrade in digital research skills.
**Deliverable:**
– Students were asked to:
1. **Take a screenshot** of the article’s **headline** and, if present, the **main image**.
2. **Post the screenshot** in the class **Telegram group chat** so everyone could see a “column� of different headlines and images.
**In-class comparative analysis:**
– After most students had posted their screenshots, the instructor instructed them to:
– Look at **all** the posted headlines and pictures (not just their own).
– Identify:
– **Repeated ideas/themes** across these non‑Western headlines.
– **Notable absences**—things one might expect to see that are not mentioned.
– Explicit request **not** to use ChatGPT for this analysis—students were to rely on their own reading and critical comparison.
– **Reported findings (whole-class discussion):**
– **Imagery:**
– Students noted a heavy use of **military photography**:
– Images of **armed fighters**, men with guns, etc.
– This visually frames the Houthis primarily as **armed militants/warriors**, not as politicians, civilians, or negotiators.
– **Portrayal of political status:**
– The Houthis are often presented as the **de facto leaders/decision-makers** in the areas they control.
– Headlines and framing describe them as key **power brokers**, not marginal actors.
– **Humanitarian context:**
– Students noticed references to the broader **humanitarian crisis** in Yemen/Red Sea area:
– References to suffering, crises, and humanitarian emergencies were present in multiple headlines.
– **Implied omissions (as students flagged them):**
– Specific details of **internal Yemeni politics** or alternative Yemeni factions often appeared to be downplayed or missing.
– Nuanced background on **regional power dynamics** (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran’s role) seemed less foregrounded in the headlines/pictures themselves (though these may appear in the article bodies).
– This led naturally into the next conceptual step: how **headline language and imagery** are used to guide readers’ initial framing of the conflict.
—
### 6. Framing and Competing Narratives: Operation Prosperity Guardian vs. Battle of the Promised Conquest
**Conceptual exercise:**
– Instructor wrote two phrases on the board:
1. **“Operation Prosperity Guardian�**
2. **“The Battle of the Promised Conquest�**
– Students were asked to:
– Guess **who** uses each phrase.
– Explain **what** each phrase refers to, and how these names relate to the same underlying conflict.
**Clarifications provided:**
– **Operation Prosperity Guardian:**
– Described as a series of **military operations** conducted from **2023 until May 2025**.
– Organized by the **United States and a Western coalition**.
– Target: **Houthis in Yemen** (and their actions influencing the Red Sea).
– Serves as the overarching Western label for its own military response: a **technocratic, “prosperityâ€�/stability‑oriented** name.
– **The Battle of the Promised Conquest:**
– Described as the overarching **strategic name used by the Houthis** themselves.
– Timeframe: since around **2024**.
– Purpose:
– Frame their struggle as:
– A **project of consolidating control inside Yemen**.
– A bid to **assert and legitimize their international position in the Red Sea** region.
– Students tentatively connected the phrase to other militant/Islamist movements (e.g., Hamas) due to similar rhetorical style, but instructor clarified this specific phrase is Houthi, not Hamas.
**Pedagogical point:**
– These two labels describe **very similar underlying events** but:
– One is a **Western coalition’s operational name**.
– The other is the **Houthis’ own grand narrative** of struggle and destiny.
– Instructor emphasized:
– Both are **strategic framings** rather than neutral descriptors.
– Each side uses language to:
– Legitimize its actions.
– Shape domestic and international perceptions.
– This reinforces the day’s theme: **institutional bias and narrative construction** in international conflicts.
—
### 7. Activity 2 – U.S. Think Tanks and State Department Coverage of the Houthis
**Objective:**
To contrast non‑Western media framing with **U.S. policy and expert discourse**, focusing on how **think tanks and official government sources** describe the same actor (the Houthis).
**Instructions to students:**
– Again, students could work with partners.
– **Task:** Find a recent article on the **Houthis** that:
– Is dated **no earlier than January 1st of this year** (instructor updated the cutoff to **January 1, 2026** at one point).
– Comes from:
– A **U.S. think tank** (preferably Washington, D.C.–based), **or**
– The **U.S. State Department** (directly from state.gov or similar official outlet).
– **Clarification of “think tankâ€�:**
– Students who were unsure were instructed to **Google “U.S. think tankâ€�** and use lists of major organizations.
– Examples mentioned:
– **Washington Institute for Near East Policy** was named as a good example.
– **Deliverable (same as before):**
1. **Screenshot** the article headline and any main image.
2. **Post it** in the Telegram group chat.
**Intended comparative analysis:**
– Once a sufficient number of U.S. sources had been posted, students were instructed to:
– Compare **headlines and images** across these **U.S. institutional sources**, similar to what they had done with non‑Western media.
– Identify:
– **Shared framing elements and repeated ideas**.
– **Notable omissions** or topics that receive less attention.
– While the transcript cuts off before a full debrief, the **design of the activity clearly aims to**:
– Highlight whether U.S. think tanks/State Department:
– Emphasize **security threats, terrorism, maritime trade disruption, regional stability, U.S. interests**, etc.
– Downplay or differently frame **humanitarian impacts, local grievances, or the Houthis’ own narratives.**
– Set up a **direct comparison** between:
– **Non‑Western coverage** (Activity 1).
– **U.S. institutional coverage** (Activity 2).
– Further reinforce the central idea: No single institutional vantage point gives a fully neutral “ground truthâ€�; each emphasizes what aligns with its purpose and audience.
—
### 8. Planned but Not Yet Elaborated (from Transcript)
*(Mentioned but not fully covered in this transcript; presumably to be continued in this or next class.)*
– **Transition to Individual Projects:**
– The instructor indicated an intent to **connect the Houthi case study and media-framing work to students’ own identified project topics** (from Tuesday).
– Specifics of that integration (e.g., applying the same ground truth methodology to their chosen issues) are not yet detailed here.
– **Introduction of the Situational Report Assignment:**
– A **1.5–2 page situational report** was announced, with:
– **Due date:** one week from today.
– Full instructions, grading criteria, and topic-connection are not yet explained in the transcript and likely need to be fleshed out in a follow‑up session or written assignment prompt.
—
## Actionable Items (Organized by Urgency)
### High Urgency – Before Next Class
– **Upload the missing reading:**
– Post the reading that “never showed up on e-courseâ€� along with:
– Clear label (e.g., “Reading for Week X – Institutional Bias and Ground Truthâ€�).
– Any guiding questions you want them to consider in light of today’s activities.
– **Clarify the situational report assignment in writing:**
– Provide a written prompt detailing:
– Length: **1.5–2 pages**.
– **Purpose:** e.g., to establish a “ground truthâ€� on each student’s chosen conflict/issue, synthesizing multiple institutional perspectives.
– **Required sources:** (e.g., must include at least one non‑Western source + one Western/think tank/State Department style source).
– Structure guidelines (background, actors, competing narratives, key uncertainties).
– Grading rubric (clarity, use of evidence, awareness of bias, etc.).
– **Plan a short debrief of Activity 2:**
– Start the next class with a **guided comparison**:
– What did students notice in the U.S. think-tank/State Department headlines vs. the non‑Western ones?
– Were the Houthis framed mainly as:
– Security threat?
– Proxy of other powers?
– Governing authority?
– Humanitarian crisis agent or victim?
– Summarize these findings on the board for future reference and for use in their reports.
### Medium Urgency – Within the Next Week
– **Connect activities explicitly to individual projects:**
– Dedicate time to:
– Have each student **map out which institutions/sources** they will track for their own topic (mirroring today’s non‑Western vs. U.S. institutional comparison).
– Ask them to **draft one or two working “competing labelsâ€�** for their issue (analogous to “Operation Prosperity Guardianâ€� vs. “Battle of the Promised Conquestâ€�).
– **Archive Telegram examples:**
– Save or export the **Telegram screenshots** from both activities as a reference set:
– They can be used as **teaching examples** later (e.g., when talking about discourse analysis, visual framing, or rhetorical strategies).
– Optionally, upload a curated selection to e‑course for students to reference when writing their situational reports.
### Lower Urgency / Ongoing
– **Monitor and follow up on chronic/extended absences:**
– Consider checking in (or coordinating with the program office) about:
– **Hermine**, **Idina**, and **Beknazar**, who were described as having “disappeared.â€�
– **Ayn Azik**, whose temporary absence is known.
– Determine whether they need support, formal withdrawal, or alternative arrangements.
– **Reinforce information literacy skills:**
– In a future session, briefly revisit:
– How to **filter searches by date**.
– How to distinguish **think tanks, NGOs, state media, and independent outlets**.
– Possibly tie this into a short activity on **evaluating source credibility and institutional alignment**.
– **Consider a short reading or mini-lecture on naming/framing in conflicts:**
– To more systematically connect the **“Operation Prosperity Guardianâ€� vs. “Battle of the Promised Conquestâ€�** example to broader theories of:
– Strategic communication.
– Propaganda.
– Agenda-setting and framing in IR / security studies.
—
This report should allow you to reconstruct the flow of this session: from administrative housekeeping and conceptual framing (“ground truth,� institutional bias), through two structured comparative media activities focused on the Houthis, to the setup (though not yet detailed explanation) of a situational report assignment that will extend these skills to students’ own chosen topics.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Situational Report on Your Selected Case
You will write a 1.5–2 page situational report on the issue/case you identified for your individual project, using the techniques from class (establishing a “ground truth� and comparing non‑Western vs. U.S./Western institutional perspectives) to make sense of a current international situation and its framing.
Instructions:
1. **Confirm your case/topic**
1.1. Return to the issue you began identifying on Tuesday for your individual project (the specific conflict, organization, policy, or crisis you chose).
1.2. Clarify the basic focus of your situational report in one or two sentences:
– What is the case?
– Why is it important or relevant to institutional bias and information gathering?
2. **Collect your core sources (mirroring the Houthis exercise)**
Use the same logic we used in class when working on the Houthis in the Red Sea:
2.1. **Find at least one recent non‑Western news source** on your case.
– Aim for an article published **no earlier than one month ago**.
– Prefer outlets that are non‑Western or local/regional (e.g., Al Jazeera, regional press, Russian or other local-language media), just as we did when we banned “stereotypically Westernâ€� sources in class.
– Make sure the article focuses directly on your case (not just a passing mention).
2.2. **Find at least one U.S.-based institutional source** on the same case, analogous to what we did with U.S. think tanks and the State Department for the Houthis:
– Option A: A report, brief, or article from a **U.S. think tank** (e.g., Washington-based policy institutes).
– Option B: An official **U.S. State Department** document or article (e.g., press release, statement, country report section).
– Aim for something **from the current year**, as the instructor modeled with a January 1 cutoff in class.
2.3. **(Optional but recommended)** Add 1–2 additional sources from other types of institutions (e.g., UN agencies, NGOs, other states’ foreign ministries, or reputable international organizations) if they help clarify the situation.
2.4. Keep a clear record of full titles, outlets, authors (if given), and dates for all sources—you will need to cite them at the end of your report.
3. **Identify the “ground truth� facts**
Using all of your collected sources together, practice the main skill emphasized in this class segment: establishing a ground truth.
3.1. List the basic factual points that **most or all sources agree on**, such as:
– Who the main actors are (e.g., government, armed groups, organizations).
– What has happened recently (key events, decisions, attacks, agreements).
– Where and when the key developments have occurred.
3.2. Note any factual discrepancies or uncertainties between sources (e.g., different casualty numbers, conflicting attributions, different timelines).
3.3. From this, draft a **short bullet-point list** for yourself of what you consider the most solid “ground truth� about your case at this moment.
4. **Analyze competing narratives and institutional bias**
Draw directly on the kinds of contrasts we examined in class—such as “Operation Prosperity Guardian� vs. “Battle of the Promised Conquest�—to analyze how institutions talk about the same reality differently.
4.1. For your **non‑Western source(s)**, note:
– How they label the actors (e.g., “resistance,â€� “rebels,â€� “terrorists,â€� “government,â€� “occupiersâ€�).
– The tone and imagery used (are there military photos, humanitarian images, leaders speaking, civilians suffering?).
– Which themes get emphasized (e.g., military operations, humanitarian crisis, legitimacy, foreign interference).
4.2. For your **U.S. think tank / State Department source(s)**, note:
– How the same actors are named and described.
– Whether the focus is on security, strategy, legality, democracy, terrorism, human rights, etc.
– Any official program names, operation labels, or strategic frameworks used (analogous to “Operation Prosperity Guardianâ€�).
4.3. Compare the two sides:
– What **ideas appear repeatedly** across your sources (e.g., “stability,â€� “threat,â€� “security,â€� “humanitarian crisisâ€�)—similar to the repeated “guys with gunsâ€� imagery and leadership framing you observed in class about the Houthis?
– What **ideas seem missing or downplayed** in one side versus the other (e.g., humanitarian aspects, local agency, historical context)?
4.4. Make brief notes of these patterns—you will turn them into a section of your report.
5. **Plan the structure of your 1.5–2 page situational report**
Aim for a concise, professional-style document of approximately **1.5–2 pages** that could realistically brief someone who knows little about your case.
A clear structure might look like this:
5.1. **Title and header**
– A descriptive title (e.g., “Situational Report: [Issue/Location] – [Month Year]â€�).
– Your name and the course information.
5.2. **Section 1: Overview (1 short paragraph)**
– Identify the case (who, what, where).
– State why it matters (e.g., regional security, humanitarian impact, relevance to global politics).
– Keep this concise; think of it as the “executive summary.â€�
5.3. **Section 2: Background (1 short paragraph)**
– Briefly sketch the key background necessary to understand the current moment (similar to how we quickly established who the Houthis are and the basic context in Yemen).
– Include only the most necessary historical points; avoid a long chronology.
5.4. **Section 3: Current Situation / Recent Developments (2–3 paragraphs)**
– Using your “ground truthâ€� list, describe what is happening now.
– Highlight events and trends from the last several months, especially those your sources cover.
– Be as factual and neutral as possible in this section—this should be largely descriptive.
5.5. **Section 4: Competing Narratives and Institutional Bias (1–2 paragraphs)**
– Explain how your **non‑Western source** frames the situation: vocabulary, tone, which actors are central, which issues are foregrounded or ignored.
– Explain how your **U.S. think tank/State Department source** frames the same situation.
– Draw out 2–3 concrete contrasts, akin to the difference between terms like “Operation Prosperity Guardianâ€� and “Battle of the Promised Conquest.â€�
– Briefly discuss what these differences suggest about institutional interests, audiences, or underlying assumptions.
5.6. **Section 5: Assessment and Open Questions (1 short paragraph)**
– Summarize what you think we can reasonably treat as “ground truthâ€� at this moment.
– Note 1–2 key uncertainties or questions that remain unresolved or are contested between sources.
– If relevant, suggest what additional information or perspective you would need to get a clearer picture.
6. **Write and edit your report**
6.1. Draft your report following the structure above, keeping the total length between **1.5 and 2 pages**.
6.2. Use clear, concise language; imagine you are briefing an intelligent reader who has not taken this course.
6.3. Make sure you clearly distinguish between:
– Description of what is happening (based on your sources).
– Your analysis of narratives and bias (your own critical interpretation).
6.4. Revise for clarity, coherence, and flow. Check that each section connects to the overall goal of establishing and analyzing a “ground truth� in a biased information environment.
7. **Cite your sources**
7.1. At the end of your report, include a short **“Sources�** or **“References�** section listing all materials you used.
7.2. For each source, include at least: outlet/organization, article or report title, author (if given), and date.
7.3. You may use any consistent citation style; the priority is that a reader could find the sources you relied on.
8. **Prepare for submission**
8.1. Save your situational report as a single document (e.g., PDF or Word).
8.2. Ensure your name and the course are clearly indicated on the first page.
8.3. Submit the report using our usual course procedure by **one week after the class session in which this assignment was introduced** (check the course schedule/announcements for the exact due date).