Photos both convey and hide truth of Ukraine war
During the first month of the war in Ukraine, much was written about the words being used to describe the war, or the euphemisms employed by the Russians to sanitize it (“Special Operation”). However , from a peace journalism perspective, an examination of the war’s images is just as crucial, perhaps more so. As Saumava Mitra writes in The Peace Journalist, “Peace journalism asks for the ‘true face’ of war to be exposed. Arguably there is no better way of showing the true cost of war and violence than through photographs because of the universal emotional appeal of visuals. Photographs, as such, are unmatched as messages of hope, empathy and peace.” (Oct. 2016, p. 6)

While images can be messages of peace, it is also unfortunately true that they can convey powerful manipulative messages. To analyze this, a new study looked at Ukraine war images in Russian media, and compared them to images in Western media.

Study
The study examined three Russian media outlets (Russia Today, Tass, and Pravda) and three Western media outlets (Reuters, AP, and Le Monde). On March 16 and March 18, the first 10 photos encountered on their websites were categorized. Most were on home/landing pages, others were found on “Live Update” pages or the first Ukraine story encountered. A total of 20 photos from each outlet (10 on March 16, 10 on March 18) were categorized. This means 120 photos total were analyzed—60 from Russian media; 60 from Western media. Some were double listed if they were “hits” in more than one category (“Suffering” and “Bloody,” for example)

Findings
In Russian media, the most common category of photos included those of officials/diplomats/generals, with 27 categorized. 19 photos were general in nature (troops not in combat, Kremlin, meeting room, airplane, UN, dam, portraits of deceased soldiers, etc.)

Of the 60 photos from Tass, Russia Today, and Pravda, none showed any Ukrainian victims. Only one showed destruction in Ukraine, though this was blamed on Ukrainian soldiers. Only one alluded to refugees, but the allusion was to Russian refugees from the Donbas region. Even then, no photo was shown of the refugees themselves, only a volunteer sorting boxes of clothes the article claimed were for Donbas refugees.

There were no “action” photos of the war, not surprisingly.

A visual scanning of these websites would make one think that the war was limited in scope, which makes sense since Russian media are using the sanitized euphemism “Special Operation” (or sometimes just “Operation Z”) instead of calling it "war."

In Western media, of the 60 photos, 29 showed destruction, and 19 had a theme of suffering (6 bloody). The suffering photos included 5 of children, 3 of families, and 10 of others—adults, or victims who couldn’t be clearly seen. One was of pets in a shelter.

Only 3 photos were of refugees. Some photos (people sheltered, for example) may have been of internally displaced persons (IDP’s), those this information was not available from the captions.

Analysis/Peace Photojournalism
The contrast between Russian and Western media is stark. The Western media coverage certainly reflects more of the reality of the war, while the Russian photojournalism virtually ignores the war itself—few images were even taken in Ukraine. No Ukrainian victims were shown. Combine the lack of empathy-producing images and the “de-Nazification” propaganda spewed by Putin, it’s no wonder that 58% of Russians support the invasion of Ukraine, while on 25% oppose it. (Washington Post, March 8)

Regarding photojournalism from the Ukraine war, peace journalism would ask the following questions:

1. Are the images needlessly sensational/bloody? 
2. Do they accurately reflect the events? (Are the images presented in context?) 
3. Do the images demonize “them,” and deepen “us vs. them” narratives?
4. Do they portray survivors only as victims, only as helpless?
5. Taken as a whole, are an outlet’s photos disproportionately concentrated on leaders/officials? Are citizen/survivors ignored or marginalized?

For Russian media, the images are noteworthy for what they omit—victims, destruction, and brutality.

From Pravda

As for demonizing the West, there is one scary image from Pravda (right) that shows a women silhouetted against a mushroom cloud with a headline asking if NATO is planning for a nuclear war. Pictures like this and photos of stern, lecturing Russian officials (half of all Russian photos in the survey) combined with propaganda positioning Russia as a victim has worked, since 60% of Russians blame the U.S. for the war. (New Yorker, March 14)

Western media could sometimes do a better job providing context. We see a destroyed apartment building, but is this the exception, or are all the surrounding blocks destroyed as well? Also, many victims are shown, but only three were distinctly labeled as IDP’s or refugees. Are the rest of the survivors huddled in shelters refugees, IDP's, or locals? This context matters.

Despite these minor blemishes, Western photojournalism of the war has been exemplary, putting a human face on the suffering inflicted by the Russians, while in the process compiling photographic evidence of Russian war crimes. The most brilliant example of this is a photo spread by the AP titled, “Why, Why, Why? Ukraine’s Mariupol descends into despair.”

It’s vital for peace photojournalists to continue working to show us rays of humanity and hope through the dark clouds of this terrible conflict. If enough rays of light and truth can shine through to the Russian people, perhaps this awful war can be over sooner than we think possible.