Is Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine The First Social Media War?

 

One interesting side effect of Russia's unjustified invasion of Ukraine is that it has become the "first social media war," with people on the ground in the beleaguered country able to publish real-time news from the frontlines. That capacity to publish updates and share footage might help guarantee that the truth is not the first victim of this fight. 

Media Coverage Of The War 

Because its military action was triggered by media engagement, the Spanish-American War has long been referred to as the first "media war." Many publications even printed sensationalist pieces, and journalists were dispatched to Cuba to observe the fighting firsthand.

Because a significant number of US combat soldiers were committed to the war in the spring of 1965, the conflict in Vietnam received the moniker "first television war" after it became the focus of large-scale news coverage. By 1968, during the height of the war, there were as many as 600 credentialed journalists covering the conflict for US wire services, radio and television networks. The Joint United States Public Affairs Office issued daily briefings, which became known as "the five o'clock follies," while the war was frequently pushed into American homes via the nightly news.

First Internet War?

There is considerable disagreement about what may be called the "first Internet war." According to Wired magazine, the distinction might belong to the Yugoslav Civil Wars of the 1990s, which coincided with the widespread use of the Internet and the development of online news services.

The power of social media is only now being realized, but as previously stated, it has the potential to change coverage because Ukrainians can stream scenes from the battlefield in real time, and anyone with a smartphone can fill the role of "war correspondent" like Winston Churchill, Edward R. Murrow, Ernie Pyle, Walter Cronkite, and Christiane Amanpour. 

"Social media represents a transformative aspect of armed conflict unlike anything we have ever seen," said William V. Pelfrey, Jr., Ph.D., professor at Virginia Commonwealth University's Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs.

What is also different now is how social media isn't being silenced by the Ukrainian government – as was the case during Arab Spring. In fact, efforts are made to keep the platforms open.

"It is understandable why nation-states would want to control social media during conflicts," said Bausman. "In the past, nation-states have had the upper hand in controlling the narrative of conflicts. Social media changed all that. Â Furthermore, in the case of warfare, social media use might even be construed as a form of guerrilla tactics. For example, it was reported early on that Russia had hacked Ukraine's Ministry of Information. This could have really paralyzed the Ukrainian resistance efforts, but instead, this is where social media filled that necessary communication void. President Zelenskyy was able to take to social media, in particular Facebook, and communicate reassurance to the Ukrainian people." 

Social media is also generating much support and sympathy across the world.

"It is arguable whether such support would exist in the real time we are seeing now, if we were only relying on reports from mainstream media sources," suggested Bausman. "This is particularly true in the U.S., as many news entities have completely abandoned the keeping of news divisions overseas. Much of the U.S. reporting of this conflict appears to be sourced through many social media accounts. Obviously, social media is proving to be an essential mechanism in getting on-ground real-time reporting of a dangerous event."

There is also the risk that misinformation may continue to be an issue.