Transcriber: Abidin Abror Reviewer: Anton Zamaraev War. For centuries, people have caught up to the idea that the cause of war is some supremely complicated thing, an epic clash of ideologies, machineries, and strategies. And most of these presumptions surely hold some truth.
It is largely emerged as a result of distance. Physical distance, cultural distance, and emotional distance. Social media has proven itself to be a vital tool in overcoming the latter<b> – </b>emotional distance.
By enabling the spread of photos, videos, and testimonies, it serves as a window into the emotions of those suffering through crisis. It provides us with a much more nuanced and often a more accurate picture of what is happening on the ground, we typically expect from our traditional media outlets and our government officials. This has never been more apparent than with the recent February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Whilst the war is by far not the first conflict which has erupted in the age of social media, it is by far one of the most reported, discussed, and sympathized with. The answer to why this is, is not unanimous or straightforward. It can definitely be sensed that for many Westerners, this invasion is much closer to home than another conflict we’ve seen in recent years.
that would be in a physical, cultural, and even racial sense. Still, for many, their concerns stem from a very ideological place. The conflict in Ukraine is often covered and understood as a case of democracy versus dictatorship, a great proxy for the struggle between the East and the West.
It was often portrayed through the dated lens of Cold War politics, and in doing so, much of traditional media has failed to capture the human aspect of the conflict. Does this make you feel something? It might seem urgent in the moment, but chances are, you’ll forget ever seeing this exact graphic.
Is it important? Of course. But does it move you?
Does it inspire you to take action? Scenes like this are what is to be expected from media coverage of conflict. Long-winded explanations of military strategies with shallow sympathies sprinkled throughout.
No matter how dire this seems, it is hard for our brains to fully conceptualize this, to commemorate it, but above all, to emphasize with it. Now, how about this? A photo shared on Twitter displaying the separation of a family.
A young child reaching for his soon-to-be-gone father. The thousands of likes, retweets, and replies speak for themselves. Or how about this?
TikToker Valeria Shashenok detailing her experiences living in Chernihiv, a city deeply scarred by Russian forces. With a mixture of disturbing footage and lighthearted humor, Valeria has won over the hearts of millions of people. Her comments flooded with support and condolences.
Young TikToker shared from beginning to end the painstaking journey of having to escape Ukraine, leaving her father behind in the war-torn nation. Marta Vasyuta posted apocalyptic clips of Russian shelling, gathering millions of views and likes in mere weeks. Not only are these accounts, some of the first and only on-site footage of Russian atrocities in Ukraine, it is also what the public has been drawn to, the most.
This is what traditional media has failed to provide. This is what social media has shaped forever. For the mass signaling of these small, intimate moments, social media has allowed audiences to recognize the truly humble and heartbreaking nature of war.
It is common knowledge that exposure to photos, videos, and testimonies elicits a much more deep-seated and profound reactions in people. So who's to say that without social media, the response to this crisis will be so unanimous and overwhelming? They will not be posted as some great ideological proxy war, but as a real and mournful endeavor.
Despite the obvious risks of misinformation and propaganda, social media holds its ground as a powerful tool at helping audiences recognize the human cost of war. It has allowed us to hear the voices of those who would otherwise have none. It has allowed us to see things we could have never imagined seeing.
And maybe most importantly of all, it has allowed us to feel. These feelings are what drive the course of humanity. Because, as much as we would like to think that we are wholly rational and logical beings, it is often our emotions that hold the most weight.
This chain reaction of witness accounts fueling our emotions, our actions, and ultimately our history, can be discerned for all time. Take, for example, the Vietnam War, dubbed the first television war. At the time novel, mass media coverage of the conflict was a key force in propelling the anti-war sentiment.
The images of the war, the warplanes, jeeps, the soldiers dying in the fields, and, maybe most importantly of all, civilian atrocities, were well cemented in the American psyche. And it wasn’t long before these brewing feelings of remorse drove people to the streets and pushed the White House to draw back its troops. It is my optimistic hope through this continued, a newfound exposure to the human face of tragedy, the course of humanity will continue to be skewed in a much more understanding and empathetic direction.
Because the response to the Ukrainian crisis, as vigorous and unanimous as it was, is never guaranteed. They may very well have been a world which the Kremlin’s narrative would have resonated much more deeply with the general public, in which, with the lack of intimate understanding that social media provides, the conflicts would be treated with a far greater deal of apathy and neutrality. Now, I’m not advocating for emotions to be history's sole guiding force.
There is real value in understanding the broader context of war in the credibility of traditional news sources. Social media is by no means a cure-all, but it is a tool that incredibly powerful, moving one of that. No other medium truly rivals its impact, its scope, but, above all, its intimacy.
Social media has effectively bridged our emotional distances, creating a more interconnected and humanistic world, as a result.
