A Delicate Balancing Act: Journalism in Conflict Zones

My recent experiences both in the Youth4Regions program for young journalists, as well as last month’s event I coordinated with Sciences Défense, have prompted me to really think about the role of journalists, particularly in war-struck regions. Before delving further into it, I should give some context for the above. Youth4Regions is a unique journalism program happening in Brussels every year, presenting young journalists the opportunity to hone their craft and expand their network. 

The former event refers to Sciences Défense’s first virtual conference of the year, hosting Ukrainian war journalist Alyona Martiniuk and presenting a great chance to gain insights into the background of the war in Ukraine through a personal perspective of a citizen and journalist experiencing the war. It was very interesting to learn about her role as a journalist during the war in Ukraine, aiming to bring to light stories of soldiers who were killed during the war or those left disabled. Her work’s artistic and literary style vividly captures the human aspect of war—a necessity in a world where information overload often strips the humanity from the political realities of conflict.

Both of these experiences got me thinking: what really is the role of a journalist, a war journalist in particular? Well, on a basic level of analysis, war journalists offer information—factual updates on a conflict and an analysis of evolving situations.

Scraping beyond the surface, a war journalist’s role is far greater. War journalists are the torch-bearers of the truth, chronicling human suffering, influencing public perception and shaping historical memory. With that, almost inevitably, journalistic pieces offering unique insights will often be underscored by biases; after all, that’s why we get all sorts of different headlines on a given event.

Take these two headlines covering the events of October 7th of last year: ‘History Didn't Begin or End on October 7th’ or ‘October 7: A terrible day, a tragic year.’ Same topic, different message; we can tell that just from the title. Some would argue this a malady of modern media, others an inevitability, or perhaps a vital component of modern media. For me, it begs the question: do journalists owe it to their audiences to be objective, or is subjectivity important in giving different perspectives? Is subjectivity inevitable either way? 

This comes to mind especially in light of the conflict in Gaza, which has drawn a lot of attention to controversies over media bias in the reporting of the war. I agree that media bias is something we should be aware of and wary of. Yet, I also wonder whether any media can truly be stripped of bias, and whether it is desirable to strive for ‘objectivity’ in media at all. I think as long as the information delivered is factual, and reflective of the true reality of the conflict, receiving news from various sources offering different perspectives is valuable; it can be even more informative of the nature of the conflict, as the news itself reflects political ideologies and hence the biases often at the root of the conflict. 

Beyond this idea of journalistic perspective and bias, I also pondered over the ethical weight of the role of a war journalist, as the bearer of information. If you think about it, aside from information delivered or leaked directly from independent individuals on social media platforms,  journalists directly deliver the information we have on current affairs in war zones. That reality comes with great power in shaping global perspectives, making the role of a war journalist a double-edged sword of privilege and burden. Reporting on war zones, particularly for on-site reporters, demands great courage. It also demands an acute awareness of how news stories are delivered. Accounting for the impact their stories have on audiences, policymakers, and potentially even the course of the conflicts themselves, are crucial. 

Hence, there are a lot of questions journalists must ask themselves when publishing stories for the whole world to see, but also scrutinize: how much detail is too much? When does a story cross the line from informative to sensational? Is this reporting serving the public good through its transparency, or is it exacerbating existing tensions and perpetuating harm?

These are things I thought about a lot during Youth4Regions, where I delved into the ethics of journalism. Although I do not hold the exact answers to these questions, they certainly helped me appreciate the delicate balance journalists, particularly those working in conflict zones, must strike in their work. For instance, according to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, a journalist must “balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort,” avoiding unnecessary intrusiveness where possible. This principle can be relevant when deciding whether it is ethical to post images or videos depicting violent content, showcasing individuals who may not have consented to their private person being used for public distribution, or when considering the consequences of posting unverified accusations—both of which we have seen a lot of this year.

Finally, the role of a journalist, especially during times of war, is not simply to inform people but to provoke critical thinking, evoke empathy and inspire action. To restate this once more, a war journalist holds great power and responsibility. Their stories not only shape the present understanding of conflicts but also the way they are remembered. We, as consumers of news content, also carry a responsibility: we ought to be critical of what we read and seek out diverse perspectives that can challenge our preconceptions, not merely confirm our beliefs. By doing so, we can be active participants in the political discourse of global developments, and hopefully foster a more nuanced, critical and empathetic understanding of the conflict-ridden world we live in.