Borodianka, Kyiv region, Ukraine (April 2022). Photo source: Pexels [https://www.pexels.com/uk-ua/photo/11734710/]
Today, the news field has turned into a real front line, where even objective publications involuntarily become part of a large information mosaic. Every editorial office balances daily between the truth of war and the preservation of ethical principles. And we, who consume these visual narratives on a daily basis, must develop critical thinking not as an abstract virtue, but as a vital shield against manipulation.
The uniqueness of the Russian-Ukrainian war as a research subject lies in the opportunity to study how different media visually interpret a full-scale European conflict of the 21st century. A comparative analysis of images published by influential media outlets during the first year of the war reveals profound differences in how the conflict is represented by different media, which directly influences the formation of global perceptions of this war.
The visual framing of war
A recent study by a team of American and Ukrainian researchers applied quantitative content analysis to news images related to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, collected from four leading media outlets: The Guardian (United Kingdom), The New York Times (United States), lenta.ru (Russia) and Ukrainska Pravda (Ukraine). Articles published during the first year of the full-scale invasion (January 23, 2022 – January 23, 2023) were selected using systematic sampling methods, resulting in a suitable dataset of 446 articles.
Two trained coders independently coded the images and accompanying captions, following a detailed codebook designed to capture the denotative (what is depicted) and connotative (symbolic meanings) visual frames associated with geographical location, dominant subjects/objects, patriotism, and human suffering. The reliability between coders was high (Krippendorfer alpha in the range of 0.75 to 1.00), ensuring consistency in coding. To identify significant differences in visual frames between media outlets, statistical analyses were used, including posterior chi-square tests with Bonferroni corrections.
The first research question examined denotative visual frames, focusing on the actual subjects and objects shown in the images.
The analysis revealed strong agreement between Western (US and UK) and Ukrainian media agendas, which portrayed the conflict as a war primarily affecting the Ukrainian people, with prominent coverage of Ukrainian civilians and military personnel. Conversely, there were almost no Russian military or politicians in Western media, effectively presenting the war as a conflict focused on Ukrainian suffering, with minimal visual representation of the Russian side.
In terms of geographical framing, images predominantly placed the conflict in the context of a specific country in Ukrainian and Western media, emphasising local consequences. Russian media, on the other hand, sometimes expanded the framing to a regional or global context, although their visual narratives differed significantly in their portrayal of actors and events. This difference highlights the different geopolitical perspectives and agendas that influence visual coverage in different regions.
In terms of patriotism, visual elements that implicitly or explicitly promote national pride and support for military efforts were significantly present in all publications, but with varying expressions. Ukrainian and Western media emphasised symbols of Ukrainian resistance and heroism, promoting solidarity with Ukraine. However, Russian media framed patriotism around state narratives justifying the invasion, often focusing on political leaders and military operations, conveying a sanitized and government-aligned image.
Finally, the frame of human suffering and destruction was less dominant in Ukrainian and Russian media, which instead favored images of political leaders and heroic representations of the conflict.
Western media included more images of civilian suffering and war destruction, thereby emphasizing the humanitarian consequences of the war.
These differences reflect diverse editorial decisions shaped by political, cultural, and propaganda considerations that influence how global audiences perceive the conflict and assign responsibility.
How the media shapes our perceptions
By studying thousands of images from leading global publications, researchers have uncovered a striking picture of how the same war is portrayed in completely different visual dimensions depending on who is showing it.
Western media and Ukrainska Pravda create a shared visual narrative that focuses on the Ukrainian people, both military and civilian. They paint a story of resistance, resilience, and national unity in the face of aggression. Russian images, on the other hand, seem to exist in a parallel reality, where political leaders are the main characters and the operation itself is portrayed as a necessary and justified step.
The contrast in the presentation of human suffering is particularly striking. While the New York Times and the Guardian dare to show the horrific consequences of shelling and human suffering, most Ukrainian and Russian media often “heroize” the war, focusing on politicians and patriotic symbols.
This creates a kind of “sterile” picture of the conflict, where the true cost of war remains off-screen.
This difference in approach does not simply reflect journalistic traditions — it actively shapes the worldview of millions of readers around the world, determining who they see as heroes and who they see as aggressors. These visual narratives influence international support, diplomatic decisions, and even societies’ willingness to engage in prolonged confrontation.
This article was originally published on: https://ua.ejo-online.eu/ Read the original article here:
Opinions expressed on this website are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views, policies or positions of the EJO or the organisations with which they are affiliated.
