Twitter of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine is displayed on a mobile phone screen photographed for ... [+] the illustration photo taken in Krakow, Poland on February 15, 2022. The Ukrainian government has accused Russia of being behind Friday's cyber-attack on dozens of official websites. (Photo by Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
NurPhoto via Getty Images
A side note of Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine could be that it is now the "first social media war," as individuals on the ground in the besieged nation are able to share real-time reports from the frontlines. That ability to post updates, share videos could help ensure that the first casualty of this war isn't the truth.
Media And War Coverage
The Spanish-American War has long been referred to as the first "media war" as its military action was precipitated by media involvement. Many newspapers even ran articles that were sensationalist in nature, while correspondents were sent to Cuba to witness the war firsthand.
Some 60 years later, the conflict in Vietnam earned the reputation of being the "first television war," as it became the subject of large-scale news coverage after a substantial number of U.S. combat troops had been committed to the war in the spring of 1965. By 1968, at the height of the war, there were as many as 600 accredited journalists covering the war for U.S. wire services, radio and television networks. The Joint U.S. Public Affairs Office released daily briefings, which soon became known as "the five o'clock follies" while the war was regularly brought into American homes via the evening news.
In February 1968, Walter Cronkite – the anchor of CBS Evening News at the time and known as "The most trusted man in America" – made the bold statement that the conflict was "mired in stalemate." That reporting even led then-President Lyndon B. Johnson to state, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."
The 1991 Invasion of Iraq – also known as the Gulf War – certainly made CNN a worldwide brand, and highlighted the power of cable news in such times.
First Internet War?
A debate also remains to what could be described as the "first Internet war." According to Wired magazine, the distinction could go to the Yugoslavian Civil Wars of the 1990s as it coincided with the mass adoption of the Internet and the birth of online news outlets.
However, it was really the 21st century's global war on terror (GWOT) following the events of 9/11 that truly showed the potential to cover war in real time.
War In the Social Media Era
The power that social media has is only now being fully explored, but as noted it could change coverage as Ukrainians can stream scenes from the battlefield in real-time, and anyone with a smartphone can fill the role of "war correspondent" like Winston Churchill, Edward R. Murrow, Ernie Pyle, Walter Cronkite and Christiane Amanpour.
"Social media represents a transformational element of armed conflict, unlike anything we have ever seen," suggested William V. Pelfrey, Jr., Ph.D., professor in the Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University.
"Historically, media depictions of war were either provided by the military – and therefore not likely to be representative – or derived from sketchy, smuggled materials," Pelfrey explained in an email. "The real time nature of high quality video provided from any cell phone, anywhere, anytime, broadcast on an always-on social media network with rapid re-tweets or sharing, means that people anywhere can virtually experience some of the elements of combat."
Arab Spring To World War III?
In many ways the events of Arab Spring could have been seen as a dress rehearsal for how social media could be used to cover such fast moving events.
"As first witnessed with the Arab Spring, the power of social media to effect social change, bolster support and condemnation for a cause, and even possibly bring down governments is proving quite formidable," said Kent Bausman, Ph.D., professor of sociology in the Online Sociology Program at Maryville University.
However, the scale and scope of social media has dramatically evolved since the Arab Spring of 2011, when social media provided real time reporting from the ground.
"Facebook has three times the average monthly user than ten years ago, Instagram and Twitter are exponentially larger," added Pelfrey. "That means the provider base (those who can provide content) is much larger and the audience is much larger. Society is acclimated to news content from non-news sources. Whereas journalists used to provide all coverage, now correspondents provide substantial coverage, particularly in hard to reach locations or places of violence. The devastation, victim experience, and images of live combat will likely change our conceptualization of war. They say that history is written by the victors. The perpetrators of violence, in this case Russia, will not be able to rewrite history when it is live streamed."
What is also different now is how social media isn't being silenced by the Ukrainian government – as was the case during Arab Spring. In fact, efforts are made to keep the platforms open.
"It is understandable why nation-states would want to control social media during conflicts," said Bausman. "In the past, nation-states have had the upper hand in controlling the narrative of conflicts. Social media changed all that. Â Furthermore, in the case of warfare, social media use might even be construed as a form of guerrilla tactics. For example, it was reported early on that Russia had hacked Ukraine's Ministry of Information. This could have really paralyzed the Ukrainian resistance efforts, but instead, this is where social media filled that necessary communication void. President Zelenskyy was able to take to social media, in particular Facebook, and communicate reassurance to the Ukrainian people."
Social media is also generating much support and sympathy across the world.
"It is arguable whether such support would exist in the real time we are seeing now, if we were only relying on reports from mainstream media sources," suggested Bausman. "This is particularly true in the U.S., as many news entities have completely abandoned the keeping of news divisions overseas. Much of the U.S. reporting of this conflict appears to be sourced through many social media accounts. Obviously, social media is proving to be an essential mechanism in getting on-ground real-time reporting of a dangerous event."
There is still the danger too that misinformation could remain a problem.
"The accuracy of such reporting will continue to be troublesome," warned Bausman. "There already are a number of social media postings claiming to document what is happening in Ukraine only that were to be proven untrue. The dangers of misinformation could release a powder keg of conflict in the region, but its use for relating real time information and galvanizing support may just prove to be Putin's Achilles heel."