The extent to which citizens perceive state repression of protests as illegitimate varies considerably across countries. While much of the previous research has focused on strategies used by incumbents to legitimize repression, the rise of freer media in many authoritarian settings allows alternative actors to challenge these narratives. In this study, we systematically test the effectiveness of universalistic and particularistic framing strategies to counter government narratives of protest repression. To this end, we conduct a survey experiment embedded in an in-person survey with 2,000 respondents in Zimbabwe in November 2024, examining how different framing strategies may correct beliefs shaped by government narratives. The study also investigates potential implications for citizen involvement in anti-regime mobilization, contributing to the literature on the ``repression-punishment puzzle''. Preliminary data analysis supports our hypotheses. Our findings provide a more nuanced understanding of the conditions under which free media in competitive authoritarian regimes can challenge repressive governments by shaping public opinion.