As much as we dislike it, war is a scary yet inescapable element of human society.

We are inclined to
create conflict, and there are limitations to how much we can avoid it. As a result, given that we cannot
erase them from our history, it becomes imperative for us to attain a more profound comprehension of
the realities of these conflicts, and war reporting plays a pivotal role in facilitating such a goal. However,
everything is easier said than done. Reporting from a "war zone" is filled with complexities and
difficulties, further compounded by the effects of media manipulation tactics. Using Human Rights
Watch's 2023 report on the Ukraine vs. Russian War as a case study, this essay analyzes such intricate
facets of war reporting, investigating how media manipulation tactics can influence and distort the
narratives presented to the public.

In brief, the report provides in-depth descriptions and critical events related to the Ukraine-Russia
conflict, with a particular focus on the enactment of a media bill posing a threat to Ukrainian press
freedom, the use of cluster munitions and landmines, attacks on residential, educational, and healthcare
facilities, and the consequences for marginalized communities, including individuals with disabilities and
migrants. It highlights the actions of both Russian and Ukrainian forces, recording unlawful assaults,
civilian casualties, and infrastructure damage. The article also acknowledges the breach of international
agreements and treaties by both sides engaged in the conflict, as well as the participation of entities like
the ICC and UN Human Rights Council, addressing accountability mechanisms and initiatives undertaken
by domestic and international civic society groups in support of Ukraine.

When analyzing the article in conjunction with Richard Engel's observations about war reporting, it
becomes evident that there are distinct parallels highlighting similar difficulties and responsibilities
associated with covering conflicts, as outlined in his anecdote. The article contains the following
elements of war reporting: description of events, testimonies, witness accounts, statistics and data,
violations of international conventions, reporting on different actors, and impact on vulnerable groups.
Its comprehensive portrayal of the Ukraine conflict, spotlighting occurrences like the deployment of
cluster munitions, landmines, and assaults on healthcare facilities, conveys Engel's ground realities of
risk and danger. It highlights the personal risk correspondents face in conflict zones and the inherent
need for resilience as it exacts a traumatic toll on one's mental and physical well-being.

The report also concentrates on the specific ways in which the conflict has had an impact on civilians
and marginalized communities, including individuals with disabilities and migrants. As per Engel's
perspective (2015), effective war reporting does not only present factual information but also tells
engaging stories that captivate the audience and provide a deeper insight into the human consequences
of conflict. By shedding light on the difficulties faced by these groups and the imperative of safeguarding
them, the article underscores the narrative and storytelling component elucidated by Engel.

The report addresses the activities of both Russian and Ukrainian forces, recording illegal assaults,
civilian casualties, and infrastructure harm resulting from both sides' actions. It also mentions the
international agreements and treaties that regulate armed conflicts, such as the Mine Ban Treaty and the
Geneva Conventions, and the clear violations committed by both parties. War reporters are crucial in
raising public awareness about conflicts and holding those responsible for violence and atrocities
accountable through their reporting. By presenting a fair and impartial view of the conflict, the article
stresses the role of war reporting in fostering public awareness and accountability, aligning with Engel's
perspective.
 The article also highlights Engel's principles of access, trust, objectivity, and impartiality. Human
Rights Watch interviewed more than 100 witnesses who offered insights into the presence of landmines,
civilian casualties, and various infractions. They also incorporated statistical data regarding civilian
casualties, attacks on infrastructure, and instances of conflict-related sexual violence into the report. By
acquiring firsthand accounts of the situation and statistics to gauge the overall impact of the conflict, the
article emphasizes our journalistic responsibility to present unbiased, factual information, even in
emotionally charged and turbulent settings such as war zones.

Given the prior analysis, one could assert that the article promotes a particular agenda or "spin" per
spin doctor tactics delineated by Stockwell (2007). In general, the article's messaging and framing cast
Ukraine in a favorable light. As observed, it employs emotional appeals, underscores legal and moral
transgressions committed by Russia, establishes credibility through the involvement of international
entities and civil organizations (e.g., ICC, and UN bodies), and appeals to multilateral response to evoke
sympathy for Ukraine's situation, delegitimize Russia's actions, validify allegations, and show that
Ukraine has widespread support and that Russia's activities are widely condemned. However, it is also
vital to acknowledge that such assessments can be subjective, and what one person considers
"deceptive" can vary based on individual perspectives. As proposed by the theory of cognitive
dissonance, individuals, when confronted with tension, may opt to modify their beliefs or focus on
specific aspects to alleviate discomfort. The truth may still be perceived as false by someone steadfast in
their opposing viewpoint. This process is referred to as selective exposure and serves to mitigate
cognitive dissonance.

Spin doctors can exert a profound influence on war reporting in various manners. The manipulation
of information can result in the spread of either inaccurate or biased reports, eroding the public's
confidence in journalism. This manipulation can distort the public's comprehension of a conflict's
fundamental reasons and intricacies, complicating efforts to tackle the root problems. Additionally,
censorship and propaganda can stifle voices that present alternative perspectives or question the
prevailing narrative, further constraining the range of viewpoints in war reporting. Spin doctors can also
shape public sentiment, consequently impacting policy choices and international reactions to conflicts.

Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model suggests that media, especially in democratic societies,
can be susceptible to various influences that might compromise the genuineness and credibility of news
reporting. They propose that media outlets often prioritize the interests of influential business and
political elites over providing impartial and critical news to the public. This model identifies five filters
through which information must pass before it reaches the public: ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak,
and ideology. In the context of ownership, Herman and Chomsky argue that media organizations are
frequently owned or influenced by large corporations or individuals with vested interests. In the context
of reporting from war zones, these owners may have political or economic affiliations that can sway how
news is covered. This can result in biased reporting or the exclusion of certain viewpoints that don't align
with the owners' interests. Human Rights Watch, however, upholds its independence by refusing
government funding and meticulously reviewing all donations. Consequently, the authenticity and
integrity of their reports are not compromised in this respect. Furthermore, since they rely on donations
rather than advertising revenue to maintain alignment with their policies, mission, and values, a similar
argument can be made regarding the advertising filter.
 In the context of the sourcing filter, the model asserts that media establishments often depend on
government agencies and corporate representatives for their news content. These sources have the
resources to provide pre-packaged news and access to information, making them convenient for busy
newsrooms. This reliance can result in a limited range of perspectives and a lack of critical examination.
However, Human Rights Watch stands apart by obtaining firsthand accounts and statistical data to assess
the overall impact of the conflict, in addition to considering statements issued by agencies and
organizations. This indicates their commitment to preserving the authenticity and credibility of their
news reporting, offering diverse perspectives and subjecting the information to critical scrutiny.
Therefore, they do not succumb to flak and refrain from self-censorship, allowing for more critical
reporting.

Overall, it's significant to recognize that the article focuses on recording and emphasizing human
rights violations, breaches of international agreements, and the effects on vulnerable groups within the
Ukraine conflict. This suggests that the article is more aligned with disseminating news for the public
rather than catering to business entities for advertisements.

War reporting plays a vital role in journalism by unveiling the truths of conflicts and ensuring
accountability for those involved. Nevertheless, it is riddled with intricacies and hurdles, further
complicated by spin doctor tactics. As news consumers, we must evaluate the information we receive
critically. As journalists, it is essential to uphold the principles of integrity and accuracy in the face of
these challenges. We can only protect the honesty of war reporting and its crucial role in shaping our
comprehension of global conflicts if we acknowledge and deal with these problems.

REFERENCES:
Brockman, B. (n.d.). Cognitive Dissonance - Persuasion Communication Context. Retrieved from
https://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/persuasion/cd.htm#:~:text=The%20theory%20of
%20Cognitive%20Dissonance%20implies%20that%20when%20there%20is,tension%20will
%20not%20be%20created.
Human Rights Watch. (2023). Ukraine | Events of 2022. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-
report/2023/country-chapters/ukraine
Nordquist, R. (2018). Definition of Spin in Propaganda. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/spin-
communication-1691988
Schmickle, S. (2007). Reporting War. Retrieved from
https://dartcenter.org/sites/default/files/reporting_war.pdf