With The Times

by Haley Alphonse

War is not only violence. Yet, journalists as an external entity covering conflicts often depicts the concept as such, attempting to achieve a state of total objectivity. While fairness and accuracy are essential to a well-rounded perspective, war—defined by Oxford Languages¹ as “a state of armed conflict”—has been a central part of depicting the assumption that war equates to violence without solutions.. War and violence do not equate to the same meaning, as war involves humanity, and conflict coverage should reflect this. Unbecomingly, it often lacks a  genuine depth, honesty, or the critical empathy shown in real journalism are often eclipsed by Hollywood’s portrayal² of journalists as cold, detached figures—a stereotype known as “bang bang journalism.” Violent acts often shock and intrigue readers who aren’t involved, but ethical journalism requires a fuller picture. It must include not only the aggressor’s story, but also the lasting impact on those who reject revenge, knowing violence won’t end violence. In the modern era, where journalists hold the power to influence public perception and policy, war reporting carries a distinct ethical burden—and demands a balanced, multi-perspective approach that goes beyond the proposed conflicts.

War coverage has long played a powerful role in shaping public opinion and foreign policy, often fueling polarization, especially in the west. This trend was dominant during the Vietnam War (1955-1975)—the first conflict to be broadcasted directly into American living rooms. Between the 1950s and early 1960s, television ownership in the U.S. skyrocketed³ from 3% to 93%, transforming how news was delivered and consumed. The visual nature of televised reporting can serve a platform  to illustrate the brutality of war into direct focus, stirring empathy for American soldiers while simultaneously framing foreign conflict through the perspective of violence, creating a distinction between inferiority and dominance. Vietnam, portrayed as a struggling communist nation, was often depicted as needing American intervention. Early coverage largely aligned with government narratives, but as the war dragged on, events like the Tet Offensive⁴ pushed journalists to challenge official accounts, shifting public sentiment and revealing how complex, and at times subjective, war reporting can be. The Vietnam War further propagated the tension between journalistic objectivity and the emotional weight of war imagery,⁵ exposing how difficult it is to present conflict without unintentionally reinforcing bias or political agendas. 

Daniel Ellsberg’s concept of “The Stalemate Machine”⁶  have analysis to how the Vietnam War reporting often had no real objectivity, as journalists relied heavily on official sources that crafted an overly optimistic perception of the war. This cycle of filtered information upheld public support and overlooked the harsh realities on the ground, demonstrating how media narratives can be shaped by political pressure and omission. In a New York Times op-ed,⁷ journalist Andrew Pearson reflects on his career and the challenges of covering the complexities of the Vietnam War. He highlights the binary lens—pro-American versus pro-Communist—the lens which many Americans fueled due to widespread paranoia of communism prevailing without capitalism. In his final reflections, Pearson argues that young journalists questioning authority and refusing to take anything at face value is exactly how democracy should function. From this critique, he emphasizes the subjective power of war reporting to convey the human toll of conflict—stories of loss, fear, and resilience. While deeply personal, such reporting exemplifies the ethical depths of journalistic integrity, as the ability to challenge official narratives offers readers a clearer view of the everyday realities faced by those caught in government-driven wars. 

Jody Santos, Founding Executive Director and Editor in Chief⁸ of the Disability Justice Project,⁹ discusses the ethics of conflict reporting from her numerous experiences. As a human rights filmmaker and conflict reporter, Santos has traveled to nearly 30 countries across five continents, covering deeply sensitive and often volatile issues—from the trafficking of girls in Nepal to the systemic abuse of children with disabilities in institutional settings both in the U.S. and abroad. Her reporting has appeared on public television such as the Discovery Channel, New England Public Radio, and in outlets like Mad in America, distinguished by a deep commitment to ethical just storytelling. With a strong understanding of the need for objectivity in conflict reporting, Santos brings both integrity and nuance to stories that are frequently overlooked or ignored by mainstream media. While she currently teaches Northeastern journalism students how to cover conflict,¹⁰ Santos has long advocated for marginalized groups that are arguably more likely to be heavily impacted by violence and warfare, such as women and people with disabilities. She is also the author of Daring to Feel: Violence, the News Media, and Their Emotions,¹¹ a piece of her work that explores the role of empathy in journalistic practice and examines how reporters navigate emotionally charged responses while covering real-life conflicts. In her book, Santos recounts the hardships and lessons from covering various conflicts, emphasizing the role of bias and empathy alongside journalistic ethics throughout her career.

With theories and opinions as early as Plato’s theory,¹² philosophers and researchers of the human psyche have long debated the complexity of thought¹³ and decision making.¹⁴ Referencing Daniel Goleman’s bestseller Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ,¹⁵ Santos explores the link between emotion and reason. Citing Goleman’s idea of “two brains, two minds”—the emotional and rational—Santos structures this examination as an intellectual balance between passion and reason. Santos highlights the essential role that emotion plays in the building of narratives that are not only intellectually compelling but also emotionally impactful. She references Rebecca Campbell’s definition of rape,¹⁶ articulated from the perspective of a survivor, as a tool to illustrate the significance of language that captures the depth and complexity of traumatic experiences. By engaging with the social sciences that underlay the use of vivid, emotionally charged language, Santos highlights how such descriptive storytelling can convey the gravity of violence in ways that streamlined or neutral language cannot. Campbell further argues that researchers and journalists cannot hope to elicit genuine emotional responses from their audiences if they approach their subjects with a sense of emotional detachment. Instead, she suggests that allowing for emotional vulnerability within storytelling builds its authenticity and resonance, enabling the narrative to connect with audiences on a deeper, more humane level. Although it is necessary for all journalists to examine every element of a story before dissecting it as truth, empathy and emotion are vital to a story with purpose.

Eliciting emotional responses from readers can present a considerable challenge, particularly in the context of war and conflict reporting, where the journalist’s responsibility extends beyond simply documenting the plight of suffering. Coverage of national tragedies such as the September 11 attacks and the Boston Marathon bombing exemplifies the varied narrative approaches journalists employ in response to crises. In the aftermath of 9/11, photojournalists urgently sought to capture imagery¹⁷ that would not only arrest the public’s attention but also convey the emotional gravity of the event. These images were intended to resonate deeply with audiences—eliciting empathy, sorrow, and a collective sense of urgency—thereby mobilizing public sentiment and action through emotionally charged visual storytelling. While the photojournalistic coverage of 9/11 serves as a strong example of effective domestic journalism, it also illustrates the potential dangers of journalistic nationalism. In the aftermath of the attacks and the extensive destruction inflicted upon a symbolically significant landscape—the so-called “American Dream”—the Bush Administration launched the War on Terror. The overwhelmingly patriotic tone of the media coverage surrounding 9/11 and the subsequent narrative of democratic restoration contributed to the construction of terrorism as an existential national threat. Consequently, the United States, alongside the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), initiated military intervention in Afghanistan¹⁸ with the stated aim of disrupting and preventing future acts of terrorism.

Conversely, media coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing has taken on a more deliberately hopeful tone. Rather than emphasizing the pain and long-term trauma caused by the attack, journalists have often framed the event within a narrative of resilience and communal strength. This approach has persisted over time, with ongoing coverage serving as a symbolic reminder to Bostonians—and to the broader national audience—of the city’s perseverance in the face of adversity. In doing so, the media plays a crucial role not only in informing the public but also in shaping collective memory and emotional response to traumatic events. The “Boston Strong” slogan emerged in response to the tragedy. As a result, marathon organizers became more vigilant about potential threats, significantly increasing security for both entry and attendance.

Various forms of journalism, both at the national and international level, inherently contribute to conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts. Among these, photojournalism occupies a particularly significant—though often unacknowledged—role in shaping public perception and fostering peace in regions afflicted by conflict. In a debrief of a panel discussion held in Medellín, Colombia, published by the International Journalists’ Network,¹⁹ Alexsandra Canedo explores the sociopolitical value of visual media in the context of conflict reporting. Canedo emphasizes that photojournalism holds a distinct power to humanize conflict, offering an alternative to the conventional imagery associated with war—namely weapons, destruction, and generalized violence. She critiques this reductionist portrayal as a misleading narrative frequently perpetuated by historical war coverage and false perception of war as an ideology. 

Instead, photojournalism allows for the individualization of those involved in conflict, bringing personal narratives and lived experiences to face value. This humanizing effect fosters empathy and engagement among audiences, rendering distant or complex conflicts more accessible and emotionally resonant. Moreover, photographs can function as powerful forms of documentation and evidence, often providing critical testimony in situations where verbal or written accounts are unavailable or unsafe. In certain cases, such images have contributed to saving lives or highlighting injustices that would otherwise remain obscured. 

Beyond their evidentiary value, photographs possess the profound potential for collective healing. By visually capturing shared suffering, cultural resilience, and the everyday realities of those affected, photojournalism contributes to a broader “national consciousness.” It facilitates communal expression and solidarity, serving not only as a record of trauma but also as a catalyst for reconciliation and peace. During the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, photojournalists captured powerful images²⁰ of civilian suffering, ethnic cleansing, and the human toll of conflict, bringing global attention to atrocities that might have otherwise gone unseen. These images stirred international outrage and humanitarian intervention, demonstrating how photojournalism can serve as a catalyst for peace by mobilizing global awareness and action. Through learning the mechanisms of peace and unifying after conflict, only can people thrive both individually and collectively in their community.

Rather than constructing narratives rooted solely in pity, journalists are often tasked with portraying stories of resilience and strength, thereby fostering a more nuanced understanding of the human experience in the face of adversity. While it remains crucial to report on acts of terrorism and violence with accuracy and immediacy, emerging research indicates that prolonged exposure to violent media content can have profoundly adverse effects on psychological well-being, particularly by exacerbating acute stress responses. For instance, findings published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)²¹ demonstrate a clear correlation between heightened media exposure following bombings and a concurrent rise in acute stress symptoms among the public.

Journalism, as a professional practice, is fundamentally grounded in a dual responsibility: to keep the public informed and to uphold the truth. However, fulfilling this responsibility becomes particularly challenging in the context of conflict reporting, where revealing the unfiltered, often brutalistic realities of violence can result in significant consequences for those involved—particularly victims. In many cases, victims may face legal repercussions, physical harm, intimidation, or financial hardship as a result of media exposure, even when their experiences are central to uncovering injustices. This dilemma invokes the framework of ethical consequentialism, which evaluates the morality of journalistic actions based on the outcomes they produce. In this context, a journalist must consider whether the dissemination of information ultimately serves the greater good or contributes to further harm. 

The story of the Lost Boys of Sudan exemplifies the ethical dilemmas inherent in war reporting, particularly when examined through the lens of ethical consequentialism. During the Sudanese civil war (1983–2005), thousands of children were orphaned and displaced,²² eventually becoming refugees resettled in Western nations, including the United States. Their narrative, often framed through the lens of resilience and the pursuit of the “American Dream,” was widely covered by journalists who, in highlighting the inspirational arc of survival and integration, may have inadvertently overlooked the complex, long-term consequences for the individuals involved. Many of these boys were not only subject to the trauma of war and displacement, but also to the burdens of being symbolic figures in a Western humanitarian narrative.

From a consequentialist perspective, journalistic coverage that aims to inform and generate empathy may still produce ethically problematic outcomes—such as reinforcing reductive savior tropes, exposing vulnerable subjects to unwanted scrutiny, or simplifying the geopolitical realities of conflict. Furthermore, journalists operating in Sudan during this period often did so under extreme risk, facing threats of imprisonment, violence, or forced exile. Those who remained were frequently forced into anonymity or self-censorship to avoid persecution. Thus, while the intention behind such reporting may align with ideals of awareness and advocacy, the unintended consequences—both for the reporters and for the subjects they portray—underscore the ethical complexities of journalism in conflict zones.

In a Time magazine article, Fred Ritchin addresses the ethical complexities²³ of publishing graphic war imagery. He critiques the American media landscape for its particular sensitivity to violent visual content, noting that while American audiences are often shielded from such imagery, and populations in conflict zones must confront these realities daily. Ritchin argues that withholding disturbing images may itself be an unethical act, as it can diminish public awareness and engagement. He cautions against the desensitizing effects of what he calls an “avalanche of violence and destruction,” whereby audiences, inundated with sanitized or distant portrayals of conflict, gradually lose the capacity for empathy. In this view, ethical journalism must strike a delicate balance between exposing harsh truths and preserving the dignity and safety of those depicted, all while fostering a more informed and emotionally engaged public.

Furthermore, the phenomenon of media saturation²⁴—especially in an era of ubiquitous access to news via digital platforms—has been statistically linked to elevated stress levels. With social media algorithms increasingly designed to maximize user engagement, content that highlights negative or violent events is often prioritized due to its heightened clickability and emotional impact. This tendency to foreground sensationalist or emotionally charged stories contributes to a broader culture of media overconsumption, where audiences are inundated with graphic imagery and emotionally manipulative narratives. As this trend intensifies, journalists are confronted with the growing challenge of maintaining professional objectivity while simultaneously producing content that resonates with an audience conditioned by the emotional immediacy and oversaturation of digital media.

In conclusion, conflict reporting—despite its inherent challenges and ethical complexities—remains an essential component of global journalism. Coverage of prolonged conflicts such as that between Gaza and Israel conflict highlights the limitations of traditional notions of objectivity, particularly when empathetic neutrality is at stake. In a study by the Pew Research Center,²⁵ researchers conducted a study which found an “overwhelming majority,” 83% of Americans had feelings of sadness after exposure to news on the Israel-Hamas war, while 65% reportedly felt angry. Additionally, roughly half of the participants have significantly limited factual knowledge of the war itself. In such contexts, striving for total neutrality can risk promoting false equivalency between asymmetrical actors, where one side may clearly bear the brunt of aggression while the other holds disproportionate power. Nevertheless, it is crucial that journalists approach their storytelling with a humanizing lens²⁶—one that affirms the dignity and suffering of individuals on all sides of the conflict without obscuring the realities of structural violence. 

Reporting on war and violent conflict presents profound challenges for journalists, not only in terms of physical danger but also in the emotional and psychological toll it exacts. Within this context, conflict reporting demands more than mere documentation—it calls for a deeply human-centered approach grounded in ethical responsibility and a desire to contribute to positive change. Journalism that is driven by empathy, contextual sensitivity, and a commitment to portraying the full humanity of those affected can help bridge the emotional and informational divide between distant audiences and those living through conflict. Rather than offering a platform that sensationalizes violence or exacerbates division, ethically engaged reporting has the potential to inspire awareness, foster solidarity, and encourage constructive solutions. In this way, conflict journalism ultimately becomes a force for peace-building and understanding.

---

References

1. Oxford Languages and Google – English | Oxford Languages. (2024, January 16). https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/
2. Bang bang off target. (n.d.). Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org/review/bang_bang_off_target.php
3. The end of the Golden Age and the rise of television | DPLA. (n.d.). https://dp.la/exhibitions/radio-golden-age/radio-tv
4. U.S. Department of Defense. (n.d.). Highlighting history: How “TET” began The end of Vietnam. https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/3291950/highlighting-history-how-tet-began-the-end-of-vietnam/
5. Menand, L. (2018, February 19). What went wrong in Vietnam. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/26/what-went-wrong-in-vietnam
6. The Quagmire Myth and the Stalemate Machine : Daniel Ellsberg : Free download, borrow, and streaming : Internet Archive. (1971). Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/TheQuagmireMythAndTheStalemateMachine/mode/1up
7. Pearson, Andrew. The New York Times, 29 Mar. 2018, http://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/opinion/vietnam-war-journalism.html. 
8. College of Arts, Media and Design (CAMD). (2025, February 5). Jody Santos – College of Arts, Media and Design (CAMD). https://camd.northeastern.edu/people/jody-santos/
9. Home page — Disability Justice Project. (n.d.). https://disabilityjusticeproject.org/
10. INTL 3300 – Covering Conflicts: Peace, War, and the Media at Northeastern University | Coursicle Northeastern. (n.d.). https://www.coursicle.com/neu/courses/INTL/3300/
11. Daring to Feel: Violence, the news media, and their emotions: Santos, Jody: 9780739125304: Amazon.com: Books. (n.d.). https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0739125303/ref=sw_img_1?smid=A1QJ4UH6FW3UH1&psc=1
12. Plato | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). https://iep.utm.edu/plato/
13. Bassett, D. S., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2011). Understanding complexity in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(5), 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.03.006
14. Luo, J., & Yu, R. (2015). Follow the heart or the head? The interactive influence model of emotion and cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00573
15. Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter More than IQ: Goleman, Daniel: 9780553383713: Amazon.com: Books. (n.d.). https://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Intelligence-Matter-More-Than/dp/055338371X
16. Abrams, L. S. (2003). Review of <em>Emotionally Involved: The Impact of Researching Rape.</em> Rebecca Campbell. Reviewed by Laura S. Abrams. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 30(3). https://doi.org/10.15453/0191-5096.2922
17. Cheng, P. (2024, September 11). From the archives: Man in iconic dust photo recounts 9/11 attacks. NBC New York. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/man-in-dust-photo-september-11-twin-towers/5782058/
18. Nato. (2022, August 31). NATO and Afghanistan. NATO. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm#:~:text=7%20October%202001:%20Following%20the,are%20deployed%20two%20weeks%20later.
19. Canedo, A. (n.d.). Photojournalism has a role in constructing peace in conflict areas | International Journalists’ Network. International Journalists’ Network. https://ijnet.org/en/story/photojournalism-has-role-constructing-peace-conflict-areas
20. The End of Yugoslavia A collection from photojournalists that covered the balkans Permanent | War Photo Limited. (n.d.). https://www.warphotoltd.com/exhibitions/the-end-of-yugoslavia36
21. Holman, E. A., Garfin, D. R., & Silver, R. C. (2024). It matters what you see: Graphic media images of war and terror may amplify distress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(29). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2318465121  
22. Robins, M. B. (2003). ’Lost Boys’ and the promised land. Journalism, 4(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884903004001110.
23. Ritchin, F. (2014, September 2). Why violent news images matter. TIME. https://time.com/3705884/why-violent-news-images-matter/
24. Huff, Charlotte. “Media Overload Is Hurting Our Mental Health. Here Are Ways to Manage Headline Stress.” Monitor on Psychology, American Psychological Association, Nov. 2022, http://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/11/strain-media-overload. Accessed 19 Apr. 2025. 
25. Nadeem, R., & Nadeem, R. (2024, May 7). 4. Emotions, news and knowledge about the Israel-Hamas war. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/emotions-news-and-knowledge-about-the-israel-hamas-war/
26. TED. (2024, July 31). War journalism should be rooted in empathy — not violence | Bel Trew | TED [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDZO45zPW9I