GNV has revealed the bias in Japanese media’s international reporting in many articles. While coverage of a handful of countries monopolizes international news, most of the rest of the world—including the majority of low-income countries—receives little attention from the news media.

The same is true for coverage of armed conflicts. While one or two conflicts dominate conflict-related reporting, the 20 to 30 conflicts that are ongoing at any given time receive little coverage. For example, as of 2024, Japanese reporting on armed conflict is dominated by the wars in Ukraine and Palestine. Meanwhile, in countries such as Yemen, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Myanmar, the number of displaced people reaches into the millions, and conflict-related hunger and disease continue at shocking levels—yet Japan’s media hardly covers them at all.

It is clear that the number of deaths and displaced people caused by conflict, and the degree of humanitarian harm, are not the primary factors determining how much a conflict is covered. A high death toll alone does not seem to attract the interest of news organizations. Where in the world are people dying? What nationalities or ethnic identities do they have? Under what circumstances are they dying? The answers to such questions are more likely to determine how much coverage a given conflict receives.

So what determines the amount of coverage devoted to conflicts around the world? In this article, we explore that question.

UN envoy surrounded by journalists in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Photo: MONUSCO Photos / Flickr［CC BY-SA 2.0 Deed］)

Overview

There are several claims about why some conflicts attract more coverage than others. For example, one claim is that the war between Russia and Ukraine has drawn so much attention because it is a war between states—meaning conflicts that are largely contained within a single country tend to attract less attention. However, the Yemen conflict, which draws little media attention, can also be considered interstate in nature. Although internal rivalries among domestic actors are complexly intertwined, large-scale airstrikes and on-the-ground intervention by a Saudi-led coalition since 2015 are a defining feature of the conflict. In reality, even conflicts that appear confined within one country involve external intervention or involvement in various forms. The term “civil war” itself can be misleading.

Another argument is that many conflicts the media undercovers have been going on for years and lack the novelty to attract interest. Yet despite the fact that the Israel–Palestine conflict has continued for decades, media interest has remained consistently high. And in Ukraine, despite little change on the battlefield for over a year, attention has not waned in the two years since the Russian invasion. By contrast, Saudi Arabia’s 2015 intervention in Yemen represented a major development, yet media attention did not rise. In 2018, a full-fledged conflict broke out in Burkina Faso—novelty in a previously stable country—yet it failed to attract attention in reporting.

In reality, the amount of coverage a conflict receives is shaped by a complex interplay of factors. In a book the author of this article wrote in 2008, titled Stealth Conflicts: How the World’s Worst Violence Is Ignored, six factors are identified that influence the volume of coverage: (1) national interest and political attention; (2) distance and access; (3) degree of empathy/relatability; (4) degree of sympathy; (5) simplicity; and (6) sensationalism.

“Stealth conflicts,” as used in the book’s title, refers to conflicts that are not made visible through reporting and the like. Like a stealth strategic bomber that is hard to detect on radar, stealth conflicts are barely visible on the news media’s “radar,” and thus fail to register in public consciousness. The phrase “forgotten conflicts” is also used, but those are cases that once briefly received attention before falling off the media radar. Many stealth conflicts never drew media attention in the first place—in other words, they were never remembered, so they cannot be forgotten.

The six factors above are not ranked by importance. How much each factor contributes to more or less coverage depends on the particular circumstances of the conflict. In general, however, the more of these six factors apply, the larger the volume of coverage one can expect.

Journalists covering an African Union press conference in Somalia (Photo: UN Women / Rawpixel［CC0 1.0 Deed］)

Factor 1: National interest and political attention

What is national interest? It is not an objectively determinable concept. Understandings of what serves a nation’s interests vary widely among people, and what is deemed important or not is often decided by those holding power at a given moment. In that sense, it is difficult to distinguish national interest in international affairs from political attention within government. In any case, it is clear that what a country pays attention to in international reporting is heavily influenced by the concerns of its political and economic elites. And news organizations tend to align their framing of events with how these elites view them.

Many elements can be expected to affect national interest and political attention in armed conflicts occurring abroad. Particularly notable are perceptions of direct or indirect military threats and the potential for refugee inflows, but threats to access to critical natural resources and manufactured goods, trade routes, and other economic activities also qualify. However, attention is not necessarily based on perceived direct threats. When major world powers are involved in a conflict, or when the use of nuclear weapons is hinted at, attention is also likely to rise.

There are several factors that complicate national interest and political attention. Even if a conflict appears to have little direct impact on a country’s interests, attention may arise indirectly if it affects the interests of an important ally. For example, conflicts of high concern to the U.S. government are also likely to draw more interest from Japanese media, in part because Japanese media are subject to the influence of the U.S. government and U.S. news outlets. Moreover, the way national interest and political attention are affected by a given conflict is not always straightforward. For instance, high attention to many conflicts in the Middle East is underpinned by the region’s vast oil and gas resources. But to explain the high level of media attention to the Israel–Palestine conflict, which lacks such resources, one must look to other interlocking factors (see this article).

Furthermore, greater impact on national interest or political attention does not automatically translate into more coverage. Even if a conflict occurs in a country with important natural resources, if those resources remain accessible during the conflict, media incentives to cover the war may be weak. For example, conflict in the DRC is closely linked to so-called “conflict minerals”, including those indispensable to Japan’s electronics industry, yet exports have continued during the conflict and there has been little media reporting on the war.

In some cases, political interests can suppress reporting. Since Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Yemen, there have even been direct attacks from Yemen on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia. For Japan, this conflict could threaten oil imports from Saudi Arabia, its largest supplier. Yet Japanese media interest in this war remains extremely low. The reasons are various, but one is that the Japanese government would prefer not to look. Focusing on this conflict would mean reporting on the massive humanitarian catastrophe caused by Saudi intervention, which would likely prompt questions about Japan’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, on which it relies for energy. In other words, turning a blind eye to this conflict may be seen as aligning with Japan’s national and political interests.

Scenes in Gaza destroyed by Israeli airstrikes (Photo: Palestinian News & Information Agency (Wafa) in contract with APAimages / Wikimedia Commons［CC BY-SA 3.0 Deed］)

Factor 2: Distance and access

According to GNV’s research, distance from one’s own country is one of the factors affecting how much another country is covered: the farther away it is, the less likely it is to be reported on. This also applies to countries experiencing conflict. In many cases, conflicts closer to home are more likely to affect a country’s national interest and political attention than those on the other side of the globe.

But distance is not the only thing that matters. For example, even though the conflict in Myanmar is far closer to Japan than the wars in Ukraine and Palestine, coverage of Myanmar is markedly lower than coverage of the latter two. In addition to distance, restricted, risky, or physically difficult access to conflict zones also affects how much a conflict is covered. If journalists can access a war zone, obtain high-quality footage, and secure interviews with parties to the conflict and those affected, coverage is more likely.

In reality, however, access is not always decisive. It is true that conflicts in places like Yemen and Myanmar present various constraints on journalistic access, but the same can be said for the wars in Ukraine and Palestine, or for the conflicts following the rise of IS (the so-called Islamic State) in Syria and Iraq in 2014. When media interest in these conflicts peaked, Japanese journalists rarely accessed the war zones, instead relying on information and footage provided by third parties. Clearly, when interest is high, difficulties in direct access are not an insurmountable barrier.

Logistics also matter, including whether outlets have bureaus near a conflict. For example, when GNV compared coverage of four terrorist incidents in mid-2017, Japanese newspapers gave more coverage to the London incident, which caused no deaths, than to the Barcelona attack, which killed 13. One reason is that these papers had bureaus in London but not in Barcelona. Correspondents can certainly cover Barcelona on short trips, but from a London bureau they can produce follow-up pieces on London attacks at virtually no extra cost, enabling longer-running coverage.

Journalists reporting in conflict-affected Syria (Photo: Министерство обороны Российской Федерации / Wikimedia Commons［CC BY 4.0 Deed］)

Factor 3: Degree of empathy/relatability

Armed conflict produces victims—people killed or injured by violence, and those forced from their homes. Those who witness violence or lose loved ones also experience psychological trauma. For news organizations, capturing readers’ and viewers’ interest is crucial from a revenue perspective. Therefore, whether audiences can empathize with victims of conflict can be a determinant of coverage. Empathy may arise from shared points such as nationality, race, ethnicity, language, or culture. It may also relate to socioeconomic status, standard of living, or lifestyle.

Consider again the comparison of coverage of the four terrorist incidents in 2017. Around the same time as the attacks in the UK and Spain, attacks in Mogadishu, Somalia, and Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, caused far more casualties than the former. Yet Japanese newspapers devoted far more coverage to the incidents in the UK and Spain than to those in Somalia and Burkina Faso. While distance and access help explain this, it is clear that similar events are valued more highly by outlets when they occur in Europe than in Africa. Whether audiences can empathize with victims is likely one factor behind the difference.

One reason for the empathy gap is that people have more contact with places and people in Europe than in Africa, and more familiar sources and experiences related to Europe. This is reflected in the stark differences in information obtained through education and news/entertainment media about the two continents. Indirect or direct experiences related to cuisine, culture, and tourism also matter. In terms of socioeconomic status, standard of living, and lifestyle, Japan shares more in common with Europe than with Africa. As a result, a terror attack in London may be easier to imagine than one in Mogadishu. GNV’s research has also demonstrated a significant relationship between a country’s lower income level and the lower volume of coverage it receives—in other words, poorer countries are less likely to be covered. Furthermore, some Japanese journalists perceive a kind of “admiration” among audiences—or in themselves—toward so-called “white” people compared to others.

Refugees in Darfur, Sudan (Photo: EU Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid / Flickr［CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Deed］)

Factor 4: Degree of sympathy

This factor is closely related to the degree of empathy discussed above. Those who determine news value within media organizations may assume that audiences sympathize with victims because they can identify with them. But other factors should be considered.

Humans are born with an innate capacity for compassion for others’ suffering. However, such sympathy is also affected by perceived innocence. In other words, people are likely to feel different levels of sympathy depending on whether the dead belong to a group perceived as the perpetrators or a group perceived as the victims in a conflict—a difference that can be significant. Terms like “massacre” and “genocide” can therefore generate strong emotions among media and audiences. Conversely, when a conflict is portrayed simply as both sides killing each other, with blame not concentrated on one side, the media may struggle to engage audiences and reduce coverage.

The psychology behind sympathy resembles the mechanisms used by Hollywood action films to draw our interest. A character depicted as “evil” commits terrible acts against a character depicted as an “innocent victim.” This stimulates viewers’ sense of justice, and when the “evil” character is ultimately defeated by the “hero,” audiences feel satisfied. Regardless of the nature of real-world conflicts, framing them in reporting as a “good versus evil” story can help sustain readers’ and viewers’ sympathy and attention.

Refugees from Ukraine (Photo: UN Women / Flickr［CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Deed］)

Factor 5: Simplicity

In general, the simpler a conflict appears to be, the more likely it is to be covered, all else equal. This relates to the “degree of sympathy” above. Conflicts portrayed by the media as a battle between two sides—one “good,” the other “evil”—not only arouse sympathy and indignation but are also easier to understand and follow.

Football (soccer), the world’s most popular sport, offers a useful analogy. One reason it attracts and retains mass interest is its underlying simplicity: two teams easily identifiable by their uniforms try to get a single ball into the opponent’s goal. The pitch boundaries are clear and the rules are explicit. If a third or fourth team were added, or players wore indistinguishable kits, the game would be harder to follow. The same would be true if multiple balls or goalposts were introduced. In armed conflicts, the more complex or unclear the identities and aims of the parties, the harder it is for outsiders to understand—reducing the likelihood of attracting and sustaining interest.

In reality, however, armed conflicts are not “simple” by nature. They are highly complex social and political phenomena, and they cannot be reduced to a clash between two clearly identifiable, unified groups of “good” and “evil.” As conflicts drag on, parties’ goals and strategies may diverge and factions may emerge, so it is not uncommon for parties to splinter.

Some conflicts are easier to simplify than others. The Russia–Ukraine war, for example, tends to be simplified as a war between the Russian and Ukrainian state militaries. Yet Ukraine has multiple powerful domestic and foreign militia groups that have acted separately from the Ukrainian military; among them, the Azov Regiment—now integrated into the Ukrainian army—until recently fought as a separate actor rooted in Nazi ideology. The United States and its allies have also played a major role in supplying arms and interfering in peace processes. Even so, compared with the DRC—where conflict has persisted for over 25 years and, after splintering, more than 100 armed groups are active—this war is relatively easier to simplify, which likely contributes to the attention it receives.

A soldier belonging to an anti-government force in Colombia (Photo: Brasil de Fato / Flickr［CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Deed］)

Factor 6: Sensationalism

Sensational events in conflict are sudden, dramatic, or marked by large-scale change. They include invasions and other major military clashes that mark the start of a war, or sudden terrorist attacks in countries not otherwise experiencing armed conflict. In ongoing wars, sensational events may be shocking one-off incidents—such as large explosions or large-scale massacres of civilians—rather than continuous small-arms skirmishes.

Sensationalism also relates to access. If a sensational event is not captured by high-resolution cameras, its news value declines. For example, the sudden invasion of the DRC by Rwanda and Uganda in 1998—an event that included the hijacking of a civilian airliner—was clearly sensational. However, the initial events were rarely captured by high-resolution cameras.

In recent years, the global spread of smartphones with high-quality cameras and the widespread use of social media have transformed this situation. The likelihood of obtaining high-quality footage of sudden, dramatic events related to conflict has increased greatly. Now, vast amounts of footage from conflicts around the world are easily accessible online—much of it uploaded not by professional journalists but by participants in the conflict and citizen witnesses.

This presents various challenges for news value. Considerable effort is required to verify the authenticity of images and videos circulating online. Moreover, even though sensational footage is now available from conflicts across the globe, there is so much of it that journalists’ and audiences’ attention may become diluted. As a result, sensationalism may have become less important than before as a factor determining how much coverage different conflicts receive. In other words, while sensational images and video may be used in conflict reporting, other factors (those above) may be more important in deciding which conflicts are highlighted to attract audience attention.

U.S. airstrikes on Yemen (Photo: Sam Al-Sabri / Wikimedia Commons［CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed］)

Conclusion

As shown above, the large disparity between conflicts that are covered and those that are not arises from a complex interplay of multiple factors. Not every conflict needs to be covered equally. But looking across current conflict reporting, the disparity is far too large. For example, in Japan’s three major newspapers—Asahi Shimbun, Mainichi Shimbun, and Yomiuri Shimbun—the Russia–Ukraine war accounted for about 95% of all conflict coverage in the first half of 2022.

In determining news value for each armed conflict, various factors beyond the scale of the conflict (e.g., death toll) are considered. That in itself is not a problem. However, it is problematic that, as global coverage decisions are made today, the scale of each conflict is given little consideration.

We should hope for more balanced conflict reporting going forward.

Writer: Virgil Hawkins

Follow @GNV_tweets