Multimodal Analysis of State-Funded News Coverage of the Israel-Hamas War on YouTube Shorts

Daniel Miehling, Sandra Kuebler · Apr 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

YouTube Shorts have become central to news consumption on the platform, yet research on how geopolitical events are represented in this format remains limited. To address this gap, we present a multimodal pipeline that combines automatic transcription, aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA), and semantic scene classification. The pipeline is first assessed for feasibility and then applied to analyze short-form coverage of the Israel-Hamas war by state-funded outlets. Using over 2,300 conflict-related Shorts and more than 94,000 visual frames, we systematically examine war reporting across major international broadcasters. Our findings reveal that the sentiment expressed in transcripts regarding specific aspects differs across outlets and over time, whereas scene-type classifications reflect visual cues consistent with real-world events. Notably, smaller domain-adapted models outperform large transformers and even LLMs for sentiment analysis, underscoring the value of resource-efficient approaches for humanities research. The pipeline serves as a template for other short-form platforms, such as TikTok and Instagram, and demonstrates how multimodal methods, combined with qualitative interpretation, can characterize sentiment patterns and visual cues in algorithmically driven video environments.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.