Coverage of Chaos: Journalists’ Perspective on Western Media’s Coverage
By Suvu Singh
Photo by Victor Blue
Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine since March 2022 has challenged the American news media to recognize the contrast between the coverage of war and conflict in Ukraine in comparison to the two-decade-long war in Afghanistan—and the violence post that has been pointed out by many across the globe. The criticism includes accusations of bias and double standards when covering conflicts in Western countries to “non-Western.” There are many contributing factors to the difference in coverage: lack of knowledge of the political and cultural context of the countries being covered, specifically countries in the Global South, parachute and embedded journalism, domestic politics, and many in the media hold concerns of implicit bias and racist undertones.
The coverage of Afghanistan in the past two decades has largely consisted of the oppression and suffering of the Afghan people, especially after the rise of the Taliban back to power. That coverage, though, fails to mention or recognize the U.S. contribution to the issue at large. The coverage has also consisted of stereotyping the people of Afghanistan, and focusing the coverage largely on American politics rather than the lived experience of Afghans. On the other hand, the war in Ukraine has been covered as a fight for freedom and democracy and the experiences of Ukrainian refugees as they flee to neighboring countries have been covered extensively.
The stark contrast in coverage of the two-decade-long war in Afghanistan, and now the ongoing war in Ukraine has raised questions about the integrity and adequate reporting of the American media by both American and non-American journalists alike. Journalists and scholars interviewed for this article provide insightful critical feedback on American media’s practices while covering foreign countries based on their personal and professional experiences having either covered Afghanistan and Ukraine, or having extensive knowledge about foreign reporting.
Covering Ukraine
Since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, I began to witness blatant racist and xenophobic remarks in the coverage of the war, which is what fueled this year-long research and journalism project. Reporters from around the world began widespread coverage of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine since it started on Feb. 22 2022. However, many quickly began to point out blatant bias and racist remarks by reporters, particularly from the West, as the chaos unfolded in the country.
“This isn’t a place, with all due respect – like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilized, relatively European — I have to choose those words carefully, too — city, where you wouldn’t expect that or hope that it’s going to happen,” said Charlie D’Agata, a correspondent for CBS.
D'Agata's choice of words, calling European countries "civilized," in contrast to non-European countries demonstrated blatant bias and implied conflict and violence in these countries are almost inevitable, further perpetuating stereotypes that harms the way in which the world perceives people in these countries.
Rula Jebreal, former correspondent for MSNBC, criticized his reporting in a tweet stating, “the racist subtext: Afghans, Iraqi & Syrian lives don’t matter, for they are deemed inferior—“uncivilized,” she wrote.
“Atrocities start with words and dehumanization. Atrocities unleashed upon millions in the ME, fueled by dictators labeled as reformists in the west.”
D’Agata later apologized for his remarks, but the bias in his remarks and reporting led to public criticism and comparisons on how the American media covers conflict and violence in a Western country versus a “non-Western” country like Afghanistan. American media outlets quickly began covering the bias in coverage itself, even pointing out the bias in its own coverage.
“D’Agata’s troubling language, in which he seemed to catch himself midsegment, pinpointed much of the emerging bias,” wrote Lorraine Ali, in a Los Angeles Times article.
Victor Blue, who has been a photojournalist for 20 years, first covered Afghanistan in 2009 and has since been to the country nine times, said many journalists from the West have missed the mark when it comes to covering the country.
“Too many of my colleagues in the West have been unwilling to try to understand that. They got it wrong for so long and they're happy to continue to be wrong, and they don't want to go back and adjust for what we got wrong.”
Blue’s work has been published worldwide for numerous prominent news publications; New Yorker, The New York Times, Harpers Magazine, USAToday and The Wall Street Journal, to name a few. His work in Afghanistan was honored in Pictures of the Year International in 2010, 2011 and 2015.
According to Kristina Berdynskykh, a freelance journalist in Ukraine, Western media publications often publish transparent news about issues in Ukraine in comparison to Ukrainian media. “If for example, something not very good thing [happens], you just close your eyes because you think it's not very important now, we can write about that after the winning of this war,” she said.
Berdynskykh added that for many Ukrainian journalists, including herself, covering the conflict in the country has led to burnout. “As a Ukrainian journalist, I can’t keep distance from people because I understand the pain. I feel the same pain inside me. That's why I think maybe American reporters are more stronger to cover this issue psychologically.”
Berdynskykh quit her role as a political editor for the New Voice of Ukraine magazine last year after 10 months of covering the war.
However, she added Western journalists, particularly other European media, often lack cultural and linguistic context in their coverage of the country. “It's very difficult issues, and it's hard to explain to foreign audience; "What happened to these issues in Ukraine and why it's so important,” she said.
Yubakar Ghimire, a prominent Nepali Journalist who has worked for BBC Nepal, The Telegraph Nepal and India Today, American media has begun criticizing U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and its own two decade-long coverage of that recently. Ghimire has reported on Nepal’s 10-year-long civil war and the conflict and violence post that. He has also covered violence and conflict in other regions in South Asia.
“I think the US media is largely realizing that [now] because we see that kind of reflection in the media but after huge and enormous loss caused by the war, in which America is a key party,” he said.
In a news segment, NBC Correspondent Kelly Cobiella, said, “These [Ukrainian refugees] are Christians, they are white, they're – um – 'very similar to the people that live in Poland," in reference to Poland’s response to welcoming Ukrainian refugees.
In 2015, Poland didn’t want refugees. Particularly, it didn’t want Muslim refugees because “there’s little appetite in Poland to create a West-European style multi-ethnic society,” according to the Politico article. However, since Russia’s invasion, Poland has welcomed more than two million refugees.
Racist remarks about refugees in “non-Western” countries were displayed and perpetuated in the news media while covering Ukrainian refugees.
Pete Kiehart, a photojournalist who has been covering the war in Ukraine, and covered the refugee crisis in Europe in 2015 said he noticed a stark difference in the coverage of Ukrainian refugees in comparison to the refugees from “non-Western” countries in 2015. “I’m happy that other people seem to care about this place but I worry about the motivations behind that,” he said, as air sirens could be heard in the background.
Kiehart has had work published world-wide by publications such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, NBC News, Paris Match, The BBC, The Guardian, The New York Times, among others.
“I certainly saw some of those, and sort of facepalmed thinking, well, when someone's just like, ‘Oh my God, they're Christians for Christ's sake or whatever it is, like, that's terrible. I hope that's not most coverage,” he said.
In regards to the coverage of Ukraine, he claimed that there is a bias because it is largely seen as a fight for democracy.
“How can we cover those two sides equally? I think coming from that perspective, there is that bias, there's always going to be a bias towards democracy versus towards not democracy,” Kiehart said.
In a BBC news segment, the former deputy prosecutor general of Ukraine, David Sakvarelidze said, “it’s really emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blonde hair being killed, children killed everyday.”
Comments like these normalize the experiences of those in “non-Western” countries, and normalizing the suffering and the oppression of Black and Brown people not only displays undertones of racism, it also dehumanizes them and their lived experiences. Conflict and violence in Ukraine is also not new. The country has been experiencing conflict with Russia for decades. Yet, the narrative that conflict in Ukraine was an alien concept for the country was again, perpetuated in the American news media.
A reporter for Britain’s ITV, Lucy Watson, said while covering the war, “the unthinkable has happened. This [Ukraine] is not a developing, third world nation; this is Europe.”
In an article published in The Telegraph, Daniel Hannan wrote, “They seem so like us. That is what makes it so shocking. Ukraine is a European country.”
“War is no longer something visited upon impoverished and remote populations. It can happen to anyone,” he continued.
In a statement, the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalist Association (AMEJA) condemned “orientalist and racist implications that any population or country is “uncivilized” or bears economic factors that make it worthy of conflict.”
“Newsrooms must not make comparisons that weigh the significance or imply justification of one conflict over another — civilian casualties and displacement in other countries are equally as abhorrent as they are in Ukraine,” the statement read.
“These were people who had covered these wars, these people had been in Iraq and Afghanistan, who covered the Rohingya [Muslims in Myanmar], and all of a sudden, you get a window into their bias and you're like, wait a minute, you were fundamentally ill equipped to be covering the wars that you made your name on for last 20 years,” said Blue, who was one of the few American journalists in Afghanistan since the Taliban takeover.
Blue added that it was “disgusting” as a journalist to witness the “colonialist mindset” be displayed in the coverage. “You are the wrong person [to be reporting on these wars]. You had an absolutely shitty outlook that colored the way we all understand these wars,” he said.
Coverage of Afghanistan
The coverage of the post-9/11, two-decade-long conflict in Afghanistan has displayed major common themes within American media. To be clear, covering Afghanistan is complicated to begin with. It is a country with centuries of cultural and political history and it is dangerous, where many journalists have been kidnapped or killed.
To start, the coverage of Afghanistan almost always perpetuates stereotypes and narratives about the country and its people. For example, in a New York Times article, journalist Barry Bearak wrote, “If there are Americans clamoring to bomb Afghanistan back to the Stone Age, they ought to know that this nation does not have so far to go. This is a post-apocalyptic place of felled cities, parched land and downtrodden people.” News coverage like this not only makes implications that violence and conflict in Afghanistan is inevitable, it also goes on to justify the bombings of innocent civilians. The American news media fails to recognize articles like these perpetuate pro-war sentiments.
“One thing about American media is [that] yes, they do contribute to warmongering, [but] they are also quick in assessing the damages, and also criticize the government when gross inefficiency or human rights violations cases are found, but they wouldn't be able to undo their role in causing the war,” Ghimire said.
The narratives when it comes to Afghanistan, and countries similar to Afghanistan, usually consist of the implications that violence, conflict and the oppression of people in these countries are inevitable.
In the same article, Bearak wrote, “children play in vast ruins, their limbs sometimes wrenched away by remnant land mines.” The images and narratives that are consistently pushed by American media results in normalizing the lived reality of children in Afghanistan – again, further implies that this is their normal.
Another issue when it comes to Afghanistan’s coverage is that the sources used by American media are mostly Western sources; military officials, diplomats, etc.
A Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) survey examined ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News in their coverage post the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The study found that out of 74 total identified, 51 were Americans, who weren’t Afghan, and had no other nationality represented. 16 of those sources were either current or former military officials. In total, only 23 of those sources identified as Afghan or Afghan-Americans.
A consistent theme within the coverage of Afghanistan particularly after the rise of the Taliban into power in 2021 has revolved around the setback Afghan women face due to their policies. The New York Times published an article titled, “Desperate Afghan Women Wait for U.S. Protection, as Promised,” highlighting how desperate some Afghan women were waiting for the American government to ‘rescue’ them.
“It's very disingenuous for the U.S. military to go into any of these situations and be like, ‘we're going to save you,’ like actually, you have been a really big part of the problem on why this is even happening ” said Tara Pixley, who has worked as a photo editor for CNN, Newsweek and the New York Times.
American media effectively failed to recognize that Afghan women were suffering and oppressed long before the Talibans took over.
Perpetuating narratives like “America rescued them,” conveniently misses out the suffering and oppression that Afghan women experienced while U.S. troops were still present in the country. According to Pixley, and other journalists, narratives like these make assumptions that perpetuate nationalistic values.
“This kind of assumption that people need saving or can't save themselves is so written into our nationalistic narratives and understandings of what is happening that the news media just replicate that,” said Pixley.
Parachute Journalism
Parachute journalism is the idea of a journalist, who goes to regions that they are not from, for a short period of time to report on a news event, and likely lacks the cultural and political context of the area. (Martin, 2011). While parachute journalism can be beneficial and contributes to one’s understanding of foreign issues, that is only possible if the journalist has had adequate sufficient time to research for the reporting (Martin, 2011). Oftentimes, parachute journalism results in oversimplified and generalized news coverage of foreign countries, specifically “non-Western” countries, and the issues they’re reporting on.
“The coverage [in parachute journalism] is superficial, and most journalists are Western and American journalists; They don't have enough local knowledge. Not to mention, most of them cannot even speak the local language,” said Hun Shik Kim, who has 15 years of experience as a reporter in South Korea and the U.S., and is currently a journalism professor at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Kim has traveled to India, Pakistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, among others to cover conflict and “war against terrorism.”
Domestic Politics
American media’s coverage of international issues, in general, is also inherently influenced by its own political interests. Almost immediately after the rise of the Taliban, prominent American news publications like CNN, Washington Post, among others, turned the coverage about domestic politics, looking for someone to blame.
“We [American media] only cover the world when there is any national involvement,” Kim said.
According to Berdynskykh, American news coverage plays a vital role in shaping American viewers’ political views. “[It is important] to understand what happened in Ukraine, not from Ukrainian journalists, but American journalists [that] they trust. They understand that they will not lie, because they have huge experience. They will understand what happened and they will understand if the American government will provide some decision to support Ukraine or not to support Ukraine,” she said.
Allowing domestic politics to influence coverage isn’t new. On Oct. 3 2015, U.S. airstrikes bombed a Doctor’s Without Borders medical site killing 19 people – including 3 children and wounding 37 others. While this news was covered in the American press, the coverage faded notably quickly.
According to Blue, who was one of the few American photographers who photographed the bombing, the coverage of the attack faded fairly quickly because it was an example of a war crime by the American government in front of the world.
“No one wanted to hear about it, U.S. forces murdering people in their hospital beds. Americans don’t like to hear about that kind of shit,” he said.
Blue added he believes the incident should have gotten more coverage. “I was very surprised at how quickly the United States was kind of ready and willing to move on from it pretty quickly,” he said. “I think that that's a kind of interesting metaphor for the war in Afghanistan.”
Blue claimed he thinks American media was able to use Ukraine as an “excuse” to turn away from its “abject failure in Afghanistan.”
This failure includes aspects such as American political failures in Afghanistan and adequately reporting on those political failures, according to Blue. He added that American media was able to capitalize on the situation in Ukraine, where America looks like the “good guy” for aiding Ukraine in its fight against Russia, and therefore being able to ignore the atrocities in Afghanistan.
“They haven't had to answer for their abject failure in Afghanistan, because all of a sudden there's this actual crisis – that is a legitimate crisis – where there's clear good guys and bad guys, which everybody likes, everybody likes good guys and bad guys, right? Like it makes life so much easier, and they've been able to kind of switch gears and really, try to turn the page on Afghanistan.”
The narratives of a hero and a villain, perpetuated by the media, “demolishes the basic principle of journalism, where objectivity is supposed to be one key factor,” said Ghimire.
“There's a perception that the U.S. media is free, it's independent, it’s objective, but they’re not away from the larger interest of the country. That’s exactly the role they play in Afghanistan,” he added.
Solutions and Solidarity Journalism
In recent years, journalists and scholars have examined the roles of solution and solidarity journalism as concepts to consider while covering social justice issues. Solution and solidarity journalism can effectively contribute to reporting beyond just covering an issue. Instead, it considers how the media is able to contribute to finding solutions regarding the issue itself.
Solutions Journalism is the concept of news media looking beyond just covering the issue, but also focusing more on reporting on the solutions to the issue itself. “Journalists need to make sure that, in writing such stories, they are viewed as objective reporters and not as advocates for social programs,” according to Susan Benesh, the author of The Rise of Solutions Journalism.
For example, according to Benesh, instead of highlighting an issue, the widespread use of assault weapons in the U.S., the Los Angeles Times chose to cover a story about a program that proved to be effective in Australia which bought back more than 500,000 semi-automatic firearms and pump-action shotguns.
Solidarity journalism is a concept that aims to cover social justice issues in an approach where marginalized or vulnerable groups aren’t “sidelined, ignored, and dehumanized in news stories about their own lives,” according to a Solidarity Journalism Initiative Guide by Anita Varma, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin.
“Solidarity reporting can help a broader public understand social injustice and what can be done about it. Bringing perspectives, needs, and issues into public discourse that dominant forms of journalism have regularly excluded is no small feat,” the guide read.
Adequate reporting of people who are experiencing war, conflict and violence is vital not only because it highlights their lived experiences, but also plays a role in how the rest of the world perceives them.
Solidarity Journalism can be beneficial in such cases as “the people who know the most about an issue – based on lived expertise – are missing or minimized in news coverage. Solidarity reporting can help,” according to the guide.
Prixley said that meaningful engagement with storytelling is important because it translates to the rest of the world and most importantly, people in positions of power caring.
“Lived reality of people isn't shifting just because this [coverage] has turned away. So when we don't take the time to really thoughtfully engage with our storytelling, when we cast people as one-note, victim narrative, we don't get people to care, and the people in power, the people who are making those decisions, money and resources and politics, they don't care. If they haven't been made to care, then those lives will not be saved,” she said.
In order to effectively report on a foreign country, regardless of the issue, it is first and foremost important to understand the cultural and political context of that place.
Blue claims that despite his own personal beliefs, it was important for him to seek perspectives from those who come from differing views, which then allowed him to understand the issues in Afghanistan at its core. Failure in doing so, results in inadequate reporting.
“I've kind of boiled down to how much myself and my Western colleagues ignored Islam. Ignored Islam as a cultural and political force in Afghanistan, not just with the Taliban, but with Afghan society in general,” he said.
As an effort to avoid the bias demonstrated in our coverage, AMEJA asks newsrooms to train correspondents on cultural and political nuances of countries they are covering. “Inaccurate and disingenuous comparisons only serve to inflame stereotypes and mislead viewers, and they ultimately perpetuate prejudicial responses to political and humanitarian crises,” the statement read.
Many in the field agree that diversification of the newsroom is important. Diversity in the newsroom translates to diversity in thought and representation. This translates to broader representation, which allows newsrooms to have perspectives from different cultures, backgrounds and experiences.
A Pew Research Study that surveyed approximately 12,000 journalists showed that 52% of the journalists who were surveyed said that their organization does not have enough racial and ethnic diversity.
However, representation for the sake of it is not effective. According to Pixley, representation is about more than just about “ticking a box” or about a numbers game.
“In news media, we still have a lot to catch up on and how we represent people, not just who would be represented, but how and I think that that's really, really important,” she said.
“It's about the quality of the content; what is the narrative that you're putting forth and what kind of ideas about the world and people in places are you propagating and reifying through your representation?”