Watching the conflict in Ukraine unfold on our screens at home in rural Indiana, we tuned into CNN and watched through night vision goggles as Baghdad's sky turned neon green, reminiscent of our Christmas lights. The love of the ice rink beckoned.
Our dinner conversation soon turned to Scud missiles and General Norman Schwarzkopf, his name quickly recognized by our German-American family, as we regaled our parents with our school-day tales of a dramatic scene at work.
My father showed little interest in our report. As a reluctant Vietnam War veteran, he had witnessed the "first televised war" and had no desire to watch bombs fall on Baghdad in 1991.
However, my father's experience is not the norm. For most Americans, the war was just a spectacle to be watched in crowded theaters and quiet living rooms. The invasion of Ukraine was no exception. As media platforms evolve – with this new conflict also being covered on TikTok and Twitter – the behavior remains the same: we consume the conflict rather than experiencing it firsthand.
Watching a conflict on screen is complex. It stirs our empathy, leading to more aid and empathy, and fosters peace. But it can also serve as a source for manipulation, misinformation, and even apathy. So, as we witness the beginning of a new conflict, we should take care to consider how we consume it.
Public spectacles of war are not a recent invention. Group battles with predetermined fight times drew crowds to the battlefield – a practice seen at the first major Civil War battle of Bull Run. Civilian crowds, including several Congress members, packed lunch boxes and flasks to witness the first battles of what was thought to be a short war. Instead, they found themselves in the midst of a deadly, chaotic conflict that sent them fleeing.
New technologies have made it possible to observe battles from a safe distance. In the interwar period, millions of Americans flocked to movie theaters to watch newsreels. But these newsreels represented society as a whole, viewing the war as a unifying event that would strengthen and support the United States when it entered the conflict. However, newsreels often served as propaganda campaigns, first produced by the film department of the newly founded Committee on Public Information during World War I. In these films, carefully edited battle footage was used to boost public support. Its successor during World War II, the Office of War Information, continued this practice and recruited Hollywood studios to create more subtle and sophisticated propaganda.
Television broadcasting has changed this dynamic. During the Vietnam War, scenes like these played out in American homes, not in the overwhelming spectacle of modern cable news. The pictures of the battle were intertwined in the daily rhythms of family life, something consumed at different times by different people.
Cable news provided 24/7 coverage and information about the conflict, revealing that Americans craved such access. Although I didn't consciously realize it while watching war reports after school, millions of other Americans did so, making CNN a household name and revolutionizing 24-hour news.
All opinions have changed: In the mid-1990s, media scholars often attributed the "CNN Effect" to foreign policy, arguing that images on cable news shaped the public's perception of foreign interventions, giving politicians a range of options when deciding to wage war (or advocate for peace).
The power of observing a conflict is real. The ability to control how conflicts are reported – be it through manipulated newsreels, edited evening news packages, or government regulations, such as the Military Press Pool Act of 1991, which bans photographing dead soldiers – holds true power.
The rise of social media has not only altered the way we view conflicts but also the way coverage is steered. Scrolling through Twitter, you can witness scenes from the Ukrainian frontlines, such as a child screaming in fear due to an explosion nearby, intense fires lighting up the night sky, or a Ukrainian woman yelling at a Russian soldier. However, these original images are often mixed with a series of video misinformation, particularly on TikTok, where videos from different times and places are falsely labeled as live reports from Ukraine.
Misleading information is nothing new. Propaganda has always been a fixture of modern warfare. During the Syrian uprising in 2011, for example, internet users were drawn to the blog "Gay Girls of Damascus," which focused on the brutal suppression by the regime. But within a few months, the author of the blog was revealed as an American, a reminder of the importance of being cautious when consuming news sources, particularly during times of crisis.
As the invasion in Ukraine progresses, these experiences should inform us on how to navigate this horrifying conflict. Above all, we should be wary of news sources, paying close attention to their authenticity and accuracy, especially when scenes are shocking. We should also reflect on what we're not seeing: the stories, experiences, and events that remain hidden from the public eye.
German activists speak out in Dubai on suffering in Israel and the Gaza Strip
New Technologies and the War Spectacle
The Dynamic of Social Media and Conflict Coverage
The Role of Emotional Reactions in Consuming Conflict
CNN's Impact on Global Conflicts and the "CNN Effect"
The Power to Control Conflict Reporting
The Challenges of Social Media Propaganda and Misinformation
Examples of Propaganda and Misinformation
The "Gay Girls of Damascus" Case Study
Navigating Conflict Coverage in the Age of Social Media
Enrichment Data:
Public consumption of war coverage on social media significantly impacts public perception and understanding of global conflicts in several ways, raising both practical and ethical questions.
Impact on Public Perception
- Instantaneity and Emotional Connection: Social media allows for the rapid dissemination of unfiltered conflict footage, creating a direct emotional pipeline from conflict zones to local communities. The immediacy may lead to a heightened emotional response, making conflicts feel more personal and urgent.
- Information Overload and Fragmentation: Users are exposed to a variety of content, including war footage, advertisements, and personal updates, which can create a perception gap. This mixed content may humanize conflicts in ways that traditional media might not, making them more relatable but also potentially confusing.
- Increased Awareness but Potential Overreaction: Social media enables the instantaneous sharing of information across vast audiences, increasing global awareness of conflicts. However, this may also lead to overreaction, as people may become persistently worried about conflict due to daily exposure to mass media coverage.
Ethical Questions
- Media Bias and Selective Reporting: Media coverage is rarely neutral and often subject to biases, which can manipulate public discourse. For example, during the Lebanon-Israel war, Western outlets highlighted Israeli casualties extensively while downplaying Lebanese losses, creating a disproportionate perception of victimhood and culpability.
- Incitement and Hate Speech: The internet has become a more violent and less safe space during conflicts, with over 70% of Israelis exposed to hate speech and incitement. This environment can lead to a shrinking public discourse as people fear expressing opinions online.
- Propaganda and Alternative Facts: Social media platforms are used in information warfare, spreading propaganda and alternative facts. This can distort public opinion and undermine reliable knowledge production, particularly in war-affected societies.
- Freedom of Expression and Safety: The rise in online violence and hate speech has led to a significant portion of the population avoiding expressing opinions on social media, fearing violent or harmful responses. This limits public discourse and freedom of expression, which are essential for democratic societies.
