Russia-Ukraine conflict, the media and professional ethics – Part 2

However, in reporting the Russia-Ukraine conflict, instead of asking critical questions of political leaders across the divide, many journalists and their outlets have instead become cheerleaders and political megaphones of their countries, throwing the media code of ethics overboard. The culprits in the biased reporting and recycling of propaganda include the erstwhile reputable organizations such as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the US-based Cable News Network (CNN).

Some mainstream media reporters ingrain themselves in their stories and in some cases betray crass professional ignorance, ineptitude, arrogance and racism.

For instance, instead of calling out government officials who are discriminating against hundreds of immigrants trying to flee the conflict zones, some journalists claim that such a conflict in Europe “is a taboo,” for the “civilised, blue-eyed and blonde-haired” race. To these racist reporters, “it is about Europeans like us not Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa or Asia,” as if some lives do not matter.

Also, instead of highlighting efforts for de-escalation of the conflict, the mainstream media are cheering American and European leaders as they reel out endless sanctions against Russia while supplying Ukraine with weapons and demonizing Putin and praising his Ukrainian counterpart Zelensky as war hero.

Russia’s state-owned media have refused to be outdone in the shambolic war reporting with the country living up to its notorious billing as an authoritarian state that imperils press freedom.

Interestingly, the British Government has approved more financial allocation to boost the BBC’s coverage of the conflict. But if the war objective is to punish a recalcitrant Putin and 145 million Russians by crippling Russia’s economy and degrading its military power, what about the repercussions on 43 million Ukrainians and the rest of the world, since both countries are major suppliers of wheat, oil and gas to the world? Also, as U.S. and Europe unveil measures to stem the impact of the conflict and unprecedented sanctions, what happens to millions of vulnerable populations in other parts of the world?

Some analysts suspect hidden agendas. For instance, President Joe Biden’s administration, which had been overshadowed by the antics of his predecessor Donald Trump, has suddenly found momentum from the Russia-Ukraine crisis. President Emmanuel Macron, who is facing anti-French sentiments in Africa and a low rating at home, has also latched onto the same conflict to shore up his reputation ahead of his anticipated re-election.

And what about British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a major Brexiter, tainted at home by Party-gate over his mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic, who has somehow found the Russia-Ukraine conflict a convenient rallying point for the EU as a temporary escape from the scandal that threatens his premiership?

Biden has hinted on regime change in Russia, saying Putin “does not deserve to remain in office.” But Biden cannot speak for the Russians. The clamour for alleged war crimes trial of Russians equally rings hollow, conspiratorial and hypocritical, given that American soldiers are exempt from trial at the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC).

The unravelling consequences of the anti-Russian coalition and sanctions include a high cost of living fuelled by rising energy costs worldwide, with the World Food Programme (WFP) warning against famine and hunger in Africa.

The scenario only reinforces the notion that no lesson was learnt from the misguided adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

American authors Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), outlined how state authorities, advertisers and spin-doctors manipulate the media.

The realisation that truth is the first casualty in wars has also been detailed in “The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero and Myth-Maker from the Crimea to Iraq” (1975 and revised in 2004), by Australian journalist and author Phillip Knightley.

Knightley talked about “heroism and collusion, censorship and suppression” of news, demonstrating how governments have become much more adept at managing/controlling the media, including during the Falklands War between Britain and Argentina (1986), the two Gulf Wars (1991 and 2003) that pitted Iraq against America and its allied countries, and the 1999 Kosovo war between NATO and Yugoslavia/Serbia.

On the Afghanistan and Iraqi conflicts, Knightley detailed “even greater degrees of government manipulation and media complicity, especially with the ‘embedding’ of reporters in military units and the uncritical, openly patriotic coverage of these conflicts.”

The Australian journalist’s conclusion is that: “The age of the war correspondent as hero appears to be over,” especially in relation to “freedom of the press, journalistic responsibility, and the nature of modern warfare.”

In a social media-driven digital World of greater openness, the Russia-Ukraine conflict bears eloquent testimony to Knightley’s assertion, and a damning verdict on media performance in conflict reporting.

War and its reporting are not show business, but every profession also has its hazards. Part of the social responsibility functions of the media is to hold governments and public functionaries accountable to the people. Unfortunately, a content analysis of media reports on the Russia-Ukraine conflict points to the failure of the code of ethics by the media on all sides.

If there is any institution that can speak truth to power or curtail the excesses of the powerful in society, it is the media. But the media loses the moral authority to perform this role where it becomes an appendage of those it should hold accountable.

From experience, diplomacy and sincere negotiations still hold the key to unlocking a lasting solution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. So, why engage in a war in which there might be no outright winners but many losers, including Putin, Russians, Zelensky and Ukrainians, and the international community? All have failed to prevent avoidable mass killings, atrocities, destructions, displacements, humanitarian disaster and aggravated human sufferings.

Suddenly, the COVID-19 pandemic, which shut down world economy, quarantined entire humanity, and all other global concerns have become secondary to the almighty Russia-Ukraine conflict.

To show that all lives matter and that the professed defence of democracy and the right to self-determination are not limited to Ukraine, the U.S. Britain, EU countries, and their allies now have a responsibility to extend to conflicts in other parts of the World, the same zeal, commitment and enthusiasm they have shown on the engineered Russia-Ukraine crisis!

Concluded
Ejime is a global affairs analyst, a former war correspondent and an independent consultant on Corporate Strategic Communications, Peace & Security and Elections.