How does media portrayal of conflicts shape your perception of them?

Here one of the biggest issues is that planners know they must produce "wins" for the media. Currently, we hear "Ukraine must start winning again", at least in the eyes of international media. But unfortunately, in war, to defeat an enemy,  you must "lose." Once called the Fabian strategy, it was exploited by George Washigton against the British and Kutuzov against Napoleon. By contrast,  today's media rewards a General Robert E. Lee-type style of bold, showy attacks. The media portrayal of conflicts focuses on maps, which is always a bad idea. Media-run wars may be one reason why my country, the USA. achieves few real victories.

Every conflict at every level has two sides... two stories to tell. Every one of us has a bias based on many factors, such as upbringing, culture, religion, ethnicity, etc. We will naturally gravitate to the media outlet that most confirms our general biases. The most productive thing that we as people can do is take a moment to read or watch the "other side" of a particular conflict and try to understand, with empathy, both sides. If we did this more, we would be able to not let a slanted media outlet confirm an already predetermined conclusion. However, by being challenged with facts, we may find more common ground that would lead to at the very least a better understanding of situations which are usually very complex.

Media bias has become unbearable, and the media industry is, nowadays, an integral part of a conflict. It is no longer possible today to get "informed" by simply opening a media outlet. Getting information calls for a research activity, one that allows you to cross check information from a variety of sources (all biased btw) and learn that there are different perspectives of the same conflict. That, hopefully, will instill doubts in mainstream media readers.

Conflicts such as war, terrorism, and genocide can be complicated issues with factors to consider such as histories, multiple sides, internal politics, and geopolitical interests. When I see major news outlets cover an issue from only one side or with information that is clearly biased or incorrect, I rely on that outlet less for information. For example, the New York Times lost credibility when it ran an inflammatory rape story, "Screams without Words." It was written by a former Israeli intelligence official with little to no background in journalism and it was based on an interview with an anonymous source. The source, Yossi Landau, had made up numerous stories, which were later debunked. Propaganda is a tool of war.

Media plays a big role in how I understand conflicts. They choose what gets shown and how it's presented, which can influence my initial impression. I try to be aware of media bias and look for information from a variety of sources to get a more complete picture.

It's important to note that media portrayals are not objective reflections of reality but rather constructed narratives influenced by various factors, including the media organization's agenda, editorial policies, and the individual biases of journalists and editors. As such, it is crucial for audiences to maintain a critical eye, seek out diverse sources, and engage in independent research and analysis to form well-rounded perspectives on conflicts.

Media in politics and statecraft, is an instrument of war. Media narrative in especially violent conflicts has the potential to influence public psyche towards a win, a loss. A media narrative could fuel further aggression or pacify the situation. Journalists and reporters covering a violent conflict are not excempt from bias and choices that dictate to the viewer who the winner or loser is. This affects people's engagement and military mobilization for the war.

null set .... World Admin LEIGHT; world consultant LEIGHT, Gmail, Instagram X, 007; and by promoting fasting 20+ day, ending starvation ASAP, winning by accepting Nobel Prizes I assign✅🌎😭🌍🌏🌐

I feel what we will choose ultimately lies deep within us. The media portrayal has to connect to that inner vulnerability. Most humans are binary decision systems, without inner built-in biases portrayal doesn't land.

The media has a critical role in serving as a watchdog in society to create the space for transparency and accountability not only with our governments but in all forms of governance in our systems. In this process reporting with verified facts in an objective and impartial manner is cardinal. In its role to educate and create awareness most especially with the masses, including amplifying the voices of the underprivileged in this process is important, and this is one of the things we do at the West Africa Democracy Radio. I believe journalists should be ready to deliver a narrative that would bring about positive change through quality investigative factual reporting with credible sources and informed and impartial analysts. Trust is key

Humanitarian view on conflicts are very decicive ,but it must not overshadow the reality and justic; as I can see these two are complementary to human dignity and a better wolld for all of us.

Continuing on the Ukraine conflict, it was particularly disturbing how the news reports depicted Russian attacks on Churches, Schools and Cinemas at the onset of the war. The mortality stats and the sheer destruction was just unbelievable. I find irony in the fact a wayward actor like Zelensky was soon managing the front of WWIII. However, we may dubiously consider the 'framing effect' was apparently employed.

I distrust reports singling out humanitarian aspects. They often fail to explain why leaders in a conflict accept a humanitarian crisis rather than starting negotiations to save their own people.

Vivid imagery of suffering or acts of heroism can trigger strong emotions, clouding our judgment and potentially fueling biases towards one side.

In the age of almost everyone owning phones with video cameras, it is hard to deny the stark reality of terror in war zones. As emotional as it is, we can no longer turn a blind eye or only take the word of mainstream news media. I believe the underlying causes of the conflict is in fact more fully addressed as we get diverse stories, opinions and experiences presented to us. This gives us the freedom to think critically.

Propaganda is the systematic dissemination of information to promote a particular agenda or viewpoint. Agenda setting refers to the media's ability to influence the salience of issues in the public's mind. Cognition describes the mental processes involved in acquiring, processing, and storing information. Propaganda can leverage agenda setting to direct public attention towards certain issues and away from others, shaping collective cognition and perception. This allows propagandists to influence beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours by controlling the information people are exposed to and the narratives they internalize.

By prioritizing certain stories over others, the media sets the agenda for public discourse. This can limit our exposure to alternative perspectives and create a sense of urgency or apathy towards a conflict.

The Current nature of source reporting is much more persuading to report their view of the issue more than facts. However, they try their best to justify their reporting with transitional situations that could be swayed either way and be convenient to sidestep the inaccuracies. Often available internet sources are used repetitively to aggrandize critical points and emphasize the integrity of the source. Experienced readers can demarcate from the strength of the issue to its inadequateness.

If you want to find a credible source, you first must question what you consider to be credible and what criteria you've preset your way of thinking to meet that threshold. Challenge your prong test to see if you're own logic includes just one source- or one type of source. If so, and then you are among the people our society defines as "living in a bubble". For the record, unlike newspapers, magazines or any website on the internet, only television and radio broadcasters are required by law to serve in the public interest. Only broadcasters are required to apply for a construction permit, subsequent license to cover and apply for license renewal, before the current expiring term. All of which is a public process. No website does the same

Repetition can enhance credibility by reinforcing key messages. When ideas are repeated consistently, they become more memorable and convincing. The most credible communication finds the right balance, repeating central points while continually providing consistent supporting details and perspectives.

The reputation of the news source plays a role in shaping our perception. We tend to trust established outlets more, but this can be a double-edged sword, as even trusted sources may have biases.

Yes,but with a pinch of salt..recent conflicts in Eastern Europe and Middle East have displayed that even credible media outlets have failed to propagate a particular narrative due to their own perceptual biase and towing the lines of major powers. While social media may appear to be less credible and sensational, it has gained such a power that it can change the perceptions promulgated by so called reputable media houses.

Western cultural, economic, and political influence has often undermined the ideological unity and self-sufficiency that socialist states have sought to cultivate. This "cultural imperialism" has made it challenging for some socialist experiments to take hold domestically. However, the degree of Western impact has varied - while Cuba has maintained revolutionary socialism despite U.S. hostility, China has strategically adapted by selectively embracing capitalist practices while retaining political control. The resilience is depending on their ability to meet citizen needs and insulate from external destabilization.

The media shapes the narratives discussed within our social circles. Exposure to friends and family's opinions, influenced by the media they consume, can further solidify our own viewpoints.

On the dot..yes..Perceptual biase is a natural phenomenon that has existed since time immemorial,those has become more pronounced in present times dye to information empowerment of the masses and proliferation of Social media.States,nations and their academia are doing less and less to educate the masses on this crucial aspect. Conflicts,which are historically prone to biased reporting and recording, have become battle grounds for war of perception.Even defining victory has become a major issue.Its only through concentration and in depth analysis that one can overcome the challenges posed by perceptual biase,but who has the time and patience to do that.

Direct reports of conflicts from the people confronting them or the ones who are connected to them, somehow has a decicive effect to delve in facts of that issue; as mainstream media has become a propaganda platform for money- warmongering centered companies!!

Further on to that, I was wondering why the Russian Federation failed in a LinkedIn global list of countries (2023). Was it a choice of her own to opt out? After seven months of warfare, I did not check the position of another warring nation (Israel).

While alternative perspective may be important for larger understanding of issues and conflicts,the challenge posed by tsunami of information in post Truth times is making it difficult to even put an alternative perspective. For common person,engrossed in 27/7 cycle of survival, search for alternative view us becoming even more difficult.

The 'media' cycle has a lot to answer for when it comes to how decision makers respond to 'reporting', & how we consume data (a single article is 'data' not 'information' as per DIKW pyramid). This is particularly true in the VUCA information landscape of conflicts. One of my favourite exercises when teaching Intelligence Analysts is to pick a 'trending' subject (ie a conflict) and conduct collection from myriad media sources. A domestic left leaning source, right-, centrist, tabloid, alternative... Then head West / East and throw in some wildcards. Each of these 'sources' provides their perspective on the subject - it's the analyst's job to corroborate, evaluate, analyse, integrate and intpret...only then does the intelligence begin.

Post Truth era and digital tribalism: We are now passing through post Truth era,where appeal to emotions and populism has virtually turned the societies and nations into digital tribes. Although projected by Tofflers in 90s,Social Media has turned the tables on how information was processed and fed to masses. Youth is severely affected by onslaught of Social and digital media,across the board, and governance is becoming very challenging for democracies.Incidently,autocracies and centrally controlled states are faring better than democracies, who are becoming more chaotic. Post Truth era has also affected conflicts,it is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between victory and defeat,and war and terrorism,interesting time.

The economic and social collapse of Lebanon, Somalia and Libya and other countries leads to the current refugee crisus due to US, UK bombing campaigns. Bringing chaos and leaving chaos.

I’d like to mention another way to control narrative space over the long periods of time (like in Chinese “GO” game): rhizomatic narrative control (I call it an ongoing rhizomatic event- ORE). It is a memetic/mind space distributed through implanted memories in primed-up collective mind. It “feeds" in real time of real life events. "Unpredictable" (or Black Swan) element in ORE is negligible. ORE can shape the collective mindset by providing well structured framework of pre- prepared stimuli. ORE is a complex structure. The best ORE feature is that it can be pre/programmed with delayed cognitive load which reveals itself only when/if the pre-set “trigger event” takes place. Think of "zero day" programs but for human cognitive/memetic space.