Social media war and conflict on the ground are two different things

Words and visuals shape narratives and outcomes, particularly when truth becomes the first casualty in the fog of war. How the grim events are reported, which frames are used, who are the good and bad guys: the ways in which the news media report help citizens make sense of a conflict’s progress and decide whether they support their governments, or not. Historically, advances in media technology altered the reporting of war, which was for long the domain of print journalists, who were subject to tight control, censored or allowed limited access and embedding during the two World Wars, until television arrived.

The Vietnam War (1955-75) is considered the ‘first television war’, when for the first time in American history, news from the frontlines was brought straight into the living room. The visuals of ‘American boys’ dying led to an outcry of public opinion, galvanised the anti-war movement, and eventually helped end the war. The first Gulf War (1990-91) was the first conflict covered live on television, led by CNN. The news channel’s defining impact at the time is since embodied in political and media theory as ‘the CNN effect’: how instant, real-time media coverage builds pressure on governments and policy-makers to act, and eventually influences the outcome of conflicts.

Cut to 2022 and the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict has already been described as the ‘TikTok war’, or more generally, the ‘first social media war’. The mediatisation of war and conflict in a networked world is intense, reflected now at many levels:

• Following Kremlin’s framing, the Russian media call the conflict a ‘special military operation’ (calling it anything else invites jail term), while for Ukraine and its western allies, it is an ‘invasion’ and ‘war’;

• Russia has banned access to western media in the country, but BBC, for example, explained in detail to Russians how they could circumvent the ban online;

• Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has been savvy with social media, frequently producing videos in which he addresses his people, Russia or western allies, and also uses online technology to address various parliaments;

• If you access western news media and social media platforms, it is clear who are the good and bad guys in the conflict, also because western tech platforms have silenced Russian voices and perspectives;

• The key role of ‘citizen journalism’ (first evident during the 2004 tsunami in southeast Asia): ordinary Ukrainians and young social media influencers have been shaping the narrative by providing graphic, raw footage of life under siege in places where journalists and aid workers cannot reach (for example, during the tragedy in Bucha);

• The western news media are dominated by human interest stories and narratives of wide support for Ukraine, while Russian perspectives are largely ignored;

• Online sleuths and fact-checkers use geo-location and other data to quickly confirm or debunk rival claims.