Navigating the Complex Relationship Between Media and Conflict

When a major conflict breaks out, news channels rush to the scene. The footage is dramatic-protests, explosions, displaced families. But here’s the thing: by the time cameras arrive, the conflict has usually been brewing for months, years, or even decades. The relationship between media and conflict is far more layered than a breaking news ticker suggests. Media doesn’t just report on conflict-it can shape how people understand it, how parties behave within it, and even how long it lasts.

Media as mirror and participant 🔗

We often assume the media’s job is to be a mirror-reflecting reality back to us without distortion. But in practice, it’s rarely that simple. Research from the Beyond Intractability project highlights that a reporter’s story can be the only source of information available to audiences on a given conflict. How a journalist frames that story can push public opinion toward one party, favour one solution over another, or even intensify the violence.

This makes media not just a passive observer but an active participant in the conflict cycle. Journalists choose which voices to amplify, which events to prioritise, and which details to include or leave out. These editorial choices carry real consequences. International outlets like the BBC, CNN, or Al Jazeera have what scholars call an “agenda-setting effect”-their coverage can shape how governments and international organisations respond to crises. Analysis by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) has found that there is no clear correlation between the number of people at risk in a conflict and the amount of media attention that conflict receives. In other words, the international media is not a reliable early warning system.

Why media gravitates toward violence 🔗

There’s a well-documented pattern in news coverage: visually dramatic events like bombings, street battles, and mass protests get far more airtime than slow-developing crises like famine, inequality, or political marginalisation. As veteran conflict journalists have observed, in the age of video, if there’s no picture, there’s often no story.

This creates a serious blind spot. Conflicts don’t erupt out of nowhere. They evolve through identifiable stages. Scholars typically describe these as latent conflict (underlying tensions that haven’t yet surfaced), perceived and felt conflict (where parties become aware of the friction and emotions rise), manifest conflict (where the disagreement becomes visible through actions), and a crisis stage where violence peaks. Conflict researchers at the University of Colorado’s Beyond Intractability project note that latent conflicts can simmer for long periods, with one side-usually the more privileged-often completely unaware of the tensions.

But media coverage tends to jump in at the manifest or crisis stage, when “action and reaction” are most visible. A training module on conflict-sensitive reporting developed for journalists in Ethiopia points out that this narrow focus can lead audiences to believe a conflict came out of nowhere. People end up blaming whoever appears most aggressive, without understanding the long chain of unaddressed grievances that brought things to a boiling point.

The cost of ignoring latent tensions 🔗

When media skips the latent and emerging stages, two things happen. First, it misses the chance to serve as an early warning system, alerting the public and policymakers to brewing tensions before they turn violent. Second, it produces coverage that is incomplete and potentially misleading. Audiences get the explosion but not the fuse.

Consider this: a dispute over water resources between two communities might build for years through quiet political lobbying, local protests, and failed negotiations. If the media only arrives when violence breaks out, the reporting will likely focus on “who attacked whom” rather than exploring the structural inequalities and resource scarcity driving the dispute. This kind of shallow coverage can actually deepen the conflict by reinforcing an “us vs. them” narrative.

When media becomes a weapon: the Rwanda case 🔗

Perhaps the most chilling example of media’s destructive potential in conflict is the role of Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) during the 1994 Rwandan genocide. According to survivor testimony shared with UN News, anti-Tutsi propaganda had been broadcast through newspapers and radio since the early 1990s, well before the mass killings began in April 1994. RTLM didn’t just report events-it actively encouraged violence, using coded language to direct killers to specific locations.

The station blended popular music, talk shows, and conversational formats to build a loyal audience, especially among young people. Human Rights Watch has documented how RTLM introduced interactive radio to Rwanda, inviting listeners to call in and share news or gossip. This made the hate messaging feel casual and communal, masking its lethal purpose. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda later convicted RTLM’s co-founders for their role in inciting genocide.

The Rwandan case is an extreme example, but it illustrates a universal point: media is never neutral in a conflict. Even well-intentioned coverage can have unintended consequences. When a camera crew arrives at a protest, the protesters may behave differently. When a news channel gives extensive airtime to extremist voices for “balance,” it can inadvertently legitimise those views.

Peace journalism vs. war journalism 🔗

In the 1970s, Norwegian peace researcher Johan Galtung proposed a framework that has shaped how we think about media and conflict ever since. He distinguished between two modes of reporting: war journalism and peace journalism.

According to the Center for Global Peace Journalism, war journalism is characterised by “us vs. them” narratives, a focus on visible violence, reliance on elite sources (politicians, military leaders), and a victory-oriented framing-someone must win, someone must lose. It tends to treat violence as its own cause, ignoring deeper structural or psychological factors.

Peace journalism, on the other hand, is proactive rather than reactive. It explores root causes. It gives voice to ordinary people affected by the conflict, not just the leaders waging it. It looks for areas of common ground and highlights peace initiatives, however small. As International Media Support (IMS) puts it, conflict-sensitive journalism requires reporters to understand what causes conflict, how it develops, and where solutions might lie. This additional knowledge helps journalists give the public a far more complete picture.

How Galtung’s framework works in practice 🔗

Galtung argued that conventional conflict coverage treats disputes like a sporting event-there are two sides, one wins, one loses, and the journalist’s job is to keep score. Peace journalism rejects this binary framing. Instead, it treats a conflict as a problem with multiple parties, multiple causes, and multiple possible solutions.

For example, war journalism covering a border dispute between two countries might focus on military deployments, casualties, and diplomatic ultimatums. Peace journalism would add layers: What historical grievances underlie this dispute? Are there communities on both sides who oppose the escalation? What negotiation channels exist, and who is working behind the scenes to prevent war?

However, peace journalism is not without its critics. Research published in Mass Communication and Society found that structural limitations-including story formats, production pressures, and the intensity of the conflict itself-make it difficult for peace journalism to become a mainstream practice. Many newsrooms still operate within the conventions of war journalism simply because it generates more engagement and fits traditional news values.

Identifying the parties: beyond “two sides” 🔗

One of the most common pitfalls in conflict reporting is reducing a complex situation to two opposing sides. Real-world conflicts almost always involve many more actors. Think about a civil war: there might be the government, rebel groups, ethnic minorities, civilian activists, neighbouring countries with strategic interests, international organisations, and corporations with economic stakes. Each has its own goals, grievances, and capacity to influence the outcome.

Responsible reporting requires identifying and including these diverse perspectives. It means going beyond official press conferences to find the voices that are often drowned out-moderates who reject violence, civil society groups trying to broker peace, ordinary people caught in the crossfire. When journalists include these voices, they present a three-dimensional picture of the conflict rather than a flat, adversarial one.

The USIP’s media working group has emphasised that local media often plays a fundamentally different role than international outlets. While international media may shape global policy debates, local media can contribute to peace by restoring trust and self-worth within communities on the brink of or recovering from violence. During the Balkan conflicts, for instance, experts identified the critical need for mediators to make freedom of the press part of any conflict management process, and for governments to avoid censorship that creates space for rumours and hate speech.

The digital age: new tools, new risks 🔗

The rise of social media has transformed conflict reporting in ways that are both promising and alarming. On one hand, platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and Telegram allow real-time updates from people on the ground. Citizen journalists can document events that professional reporters cannot reach. Research published in Journalism Practice found that conflict journalists covering wars in Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Iraq increasingly relied on social media as a source of information, particularly when conflict zones were too dangerous for physical access.

On the other hand, these same platforms are fertile ground for misinformation, propaganda, and hate speech. Journalists working with social media sources must exercise extreme caution, verifying information through multiple channels before publishing. The speed of digital news also puts pressure on accuracy-the race to be first can override the commitment to be right.

The Rwanda survivor interviewed by the UN was asked whether social media would have worsened the genocide had it existed in 1994. Her answer was unequivocal: it would have been far worse. Messages that once took years to spread can now reach millions in seconds, and social media algorithms tend to amplify the most emotionally charged content-exactly the kind of content that fuels conflict.

Towards balanced conflict coverage 🔗

So what does responsible media coverage of conflict look like? It starts with a commitment to covering the full lifecycle of a conflict, not just its most dramatic moments. Journalists and editors should invest in reporting on latent tensions-the inequality, the political exclusion, the resource disputes-long before they erupt into violence.

It also means applying basic principles of conflict-sensitive journalism in daily reporting practice. These include understanding the root causes before writing a single word, questioning every source’s motives, avoiding language that dehumanises any party, and being mindful of how coverage might affect the people living through the conflict. As one veteran journalist advises, in a conflict zone, the truth is extremely difficult to find-if you haven’t seen something yourself, be very careful about repeating what others tell you.

Finally, it requires media organisations to resist the commercial incentives that reward sensational coverage. Peace journalism may not generate the same clicks as war journalism, but it serves the public interest far more effectively. When audiences understand the full context of a conflict-the historical grievances, the structural injustices, the failed negotiations, and the ongoing peace efforts-they are better equipped to support solutions rather than simply consume the spectacle.

What do you think? When you follow news about a conflict, do you feel like you’re getting the full picture-or mostly the violent, surface-level drama? How might media coverage change if newsrooms dedicated as much attention to the root causes of conflict as they do to the explosions?

References

1. https://www.beyondintractability.org/artsum/young-role
2. https://www.usip.org/publications/2007/06/role-media-conflict
3. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/latent_conflict
4. https://www.usagm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/CONFLICT-SENSITIVE-REPORTING-AND-ETHICS-LEARNER-MODULE-Ethiopia.doc
5. https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/04/1135902
6. https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno1-3-10.htm
7. https://mediapeaceproject.smpa.gwu.edu/2017/12/14/what-is-peace-journalism/
8. https://www.mediasupport.org/publication/conflict-sensitive-journalism/
9. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15205430903348829
10. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512786.2021.1908839