Media-Induced War Trauma Amid Conflicts in Ukraine

War could be traumatic. In the name of defense or justice and often under the disguise of following orders, war reveals the worst of humanity. War also represents a rare situation in which even violence designed for mass destruction or deliberate decimation can be justified (Tzu, 2014). Yet the scars it leaves are manifold. As seen in military professionals, refugees, and health workers, exerting, receiving, or even witnessing atrocities could often cause war trauma (Derluyn et al., 2004; Fouad et al., 2017; B. S. Levy & Sidel, 2013). War trauma could be understood as traumatic health consequences resulting from being exposed to the war (Hunt, 2010). Recurring evidence shows that war trauma could often lead to severe and sustained health consequences on people’s physical and psychological health (Charlson et al., 2019; Howard et al., 2022; Roberts et al., 2019). A study of 1,247 Ukrainians amid the war, for instance, showed that Ukrainians who have direct exposure to the Russian–Ukraine conflicts experienced elevated levels of posttraumatic stress disorders compared with people who did not have direct exposure (Johnson et al., 2022). Findings from meta-analyses further show that at any point in people affected by war or conflicts, the prevalence of mental disorders, such as depression, posttraumatic stress disorders, and schizophrenia, is 22.1% (Charlson et al., 2019).

Traditionally, war trauma is often prevalent in people who either participated in the war or were in close proximity to the battleground, such as military professionals, refugees, and health workers (Murthy & Lakshminarayana, 2006; Rozanov et al., 2019). However, situations might be changing because of the unique circumstances of the Russia-Ukraine war. For starters, the current conflicts occur against the backdrop in which advanced information and communication technologies are becoming ever-more prevalent. The speed, scale, and scope at which people could be exposed to the near-time happenings of the war mean that the battleground of the war is expanding via the Internet to people’s living rooms and workplaces fast. In other words, exposure to the brutality of the war is no longer confined within the geographical space where the shelling and bombing occur; rather, it could encroach into people’s cyberspace, where media coverage of the war travels and meanders (Su et al., 2021). This means that an unprecedented number of people who neither participated in the war nor were in close proximity to the conflicts could be exposed to media-induced war trauma.

It is important to underscore that rather than trivial, media-induced war trauma may lead to material mental-health challenges in people worldwide. Different from military professionals, refugees, health workers, or even war journalists, who may experience or witness only some parts of the war near or from afar, people at home often have to struggle to process all aspects of the war from all angles possible, often paired with disturbing, if not demoralizing, images and video footages, repeatedly 24/7. Social media could further compound the situation. The built-to-monetize algorithms that many social-media platforms worship could ensure that not only do people receive news, they also receive it in a calculated fashion that can further fuel their continued media consumption (R. Levy, 2021). This heavy media coverage could not only expose people, even people who live thousands of miles away from the conflict zones, to the darkest sides of war and humanity and, in turn, war trauma, but also has the potential to inadvertently overwhelm people to levels of war trauma that might not be even seen in communities who are directly affected by the war. Not to mention that misinformation on social media, which could be both distracting and mentally exacting (Lazer David et al., 2018), may further stress people’s mental health.

The pandemic could further exacerbate the situation. It is important to emphasize that 2022 marks the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a time when much of the world’s mental health has been materially affected by the pandemic (Q. Liu et al., 2020; S. Liu et al., 2020; Santomauro et al., 2021). It is estimated, for instance, that the pandemic has added an additional 76.2 million anxiety disorders and 49.4 million major depressive disorders across the globe (Santomauro et al., 2021). The fact that COVID-19 is still evolving (Our World in Data, 2022), either surging or resurfacing in many parts of the world, could exert additional pressure on people’s mental-health issues (Su et al., 2022). What these insights combined suggest is that in a time when people’s ability to protect personal and public health, as well as global health such as the well-being of Ukrainians, is in high demand, as a result of undue exposure to media-induced war trauma, their mental health might be too mired in challenges to be helpful in a timely fashion. Furthermore, they also point to the critical role of the media industry in shaping public health and global affairs and the need for media professionals to assume duties and responsibilities in promoting the welfare of all members of society while limiting, if not eliminating, the unintended consequences of their reporting. In other words, questions such as “Does this report present well-balanced views and factual evidence, or is it engineered to be sensational?” and “What intended and unintended consequences might this coverage on the war cause in all stakeholders, especially those who live with severe mental health disorders?” should be asked and confidently answered before they meet the public.

Amid the cascading threats of the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, environmental degradation, and the war, as the “fourth estate” or the guardian of virtuous social norms and accountable behaviors (Schultz, 1998), the media industry not only has an obligation to bear witness and protect people who live in or near the conflict zone but also to the health and well-being of all citizens of the globe, especially when the dangers come from within, such as media-induced war trauma. This due diligence would require media professionals to factor in the mental health of all their intended and unintended audiences (Society of Professional Journalists, 2022), ranging from families of fallen soldiers from both Ukraine and Russia to young children from both countries to people who live with severe mental-health disorders across the globe, in assessing the impacts of their coverage on the war. If history is any guide (Jefee-Bahloul et al., 2016; Shoib et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2021), both war and subsequent humanitarian aid often take the form of a marathon, as opposed to a sprint. This means that the duration of help needed from refugees from Ukraine and other countries will likely be in units of decades, as opposed to days or weeks. To ensure optimal and sustainable humanitarian help could be encouraged and empowered by their reports alone, not least to avoid breeding fatigue and inaction among their audiences, the media industry should take profound caution to avoid overexposing the world to an infinite amount of war trauma. Unlike the war, which is inherently traumatic, the media industry has a choice. If there is an ideal time for the media industry to make a stand and be a positive light in humanity’s darkest hours, via balanced and accountable reporting and beyond, it is now.