Objectivity versus Agenda – Is media impartiality in conflict reporting beyond reach?

Global conflicts regularly make it to the headlines, be it Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine or the recent outbreak of hostilities in India and Pakistan. In these moments, we as an audience hope for clear, unfiltered reporting: a truthful account of events. While this expectation may appear simple, it becomes increasingly complex to achieve in a landscape clouded by disinformation and fake news, where journalists face growing pressure to take sides. In an era of saturated information and competing narratives, the role of the media becomes essential to discern truth from distortion.  

On 29 April, UCL hosted the fifth event in its ‘Disagreeing Well’ public series at The Bloomsbury Theatre, exploring the role of impartiality in conflict reporting. The evening brought together seasoned war correspondents: Jeremy Bowen (BBC International Editor and UCL alum), Rageh Omaar (International Affairs Analyst and Presenter, ITV), and Fiona O’Brien (UK Director, Reporters Without Borders). The event was chaired by Dr Julie Norman (Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations at UCL). For me, it was a great opportunity to encounter not only perspectives like mine, but also those that do not resonate as much, for a fresh perspective on happenings in the world.  

I found myself fascinated and shaken by the harsh realities faced by the people behind the headlines, whom we so often take for granted. Upon being asked about their most challenging country to cover, Rageh answered the Congo was the most difficult. I particularly resonated with the challenge he brought up: that of living in a different country and having to leave it. As students, we can relate to the idea of becoming attached to a place or community – whether it's a university, a city, or a group of people. For journalists, becoming emotionally invested in conflicted communities and then having to leave them behind can produce a profound sense of grief or loss.  

The panellists highlighted independent access as key to effective journalism. Fiona admitted that this isn’t always possible; she recalled instances of being escorted by army personnel and having to wear their symbols, just to gain access. I was stuck by her firm ethical stance in deciding not to report from areas when it would mean compromising her personal values. This served as a powerful reminder that journalism is not just about telling a story, but about preserving your morals in the most challenging circumstances.  

Similarly, Jeremy expressed his concern over how journalists today are increasingly obstructed through visa restrictions or limited access to war zones. He drew on his experiences interviewing dictators, where the desire to control narratives transcended logistical barriers to overt manipulation. He advised journalists to stay firm and persist in asking the tough questions. Reflecting upon his statements, I believe that holding those in power accountable for their actions, rather than succumbing to intimidation, is essential in the pursuit of truth. It also serves as a powerful message for societies to remain politically active.  

It is almost impossible not to turn to the topic of social media when discussing conflict. A 2023 UNESCO report on Sudanese journalists found that 51% of interviewees received digital threats, undermining journalists’ ability to report factually. Upon being asked about the power of disinformation today, Rageh replied: “Journalism is the first draft of history and can be false sometimes.” This fine line between objectivity and subjectivity is increasingly blurred by social media, where the “first draft” may be written and shared faster than ever, by multiple voices across the globe. Fiona emphasised that since we consume more content at an increasingly rapid rate, the potential damage of disinformation has substantially increased. Skewed public opinion may impact political decision-making and create prejudice between groups, exacerbating conflict rather than resolution.  

While social media provides immediate access to global events, it has also intensified the pressures journalists face. The constant demand for updates and exposure, combined with online harassment, adds to the impact of risking their lives in conflict zones. The emotional and psychological toll this work takes on journalists often goes undiscussed. Hence the panel’s candid discussion of mental health was so valuable. Jeremy opened up about his struggles with PTSD symptoms, such as hypervigilance and depression, due to witnessing his colleagues being killed.  

This display of vulnerability led to an interesting question from an expert in the audience: “How much of ourselves should we show as journalists?” In my experience, many students feel that journalists should share their personal stance and opinion on conflicts. However, the panellists took a different view. Rageh argued strongly for dispassionate reporting while Fiona explained that journalists were limited to saying what you see. Jeremy added that journalism is not a field where one can express feelings.  

“The pen is mightier than the sword” is a phrase many of us grew up hearing; however, it wasn’t until this event that I knew how powerful words can be. Jeremy emphasised the huge impact that language can have on perceptions and outcomes of a conflict. This was his rationale in explaining the BBC’s policy to describe events neutrally, without using words that may express judgement about who is right or wrong. Examples of such words include “genocide”. Mention of this word, in fact, was powerful enough to trigger a debate between a few members of the audience and the panellists. 

In Rageh’s opinion, some crises receive more attention than others due to higher commercial or political interest, and access to information. He cited the limited media coverage of Sudan. Discussing examples of political involvement in the media, Jeremy recalled the Israeli government showing journalists the content which, in his words, “they wanted us to see”. At this stage there was further disruption in the audience, to the point that the event had to conclude earlier than expected.  

The panellists continued their discussion for as long as they were able, before concluding with thoughtful closing remarks. What stood out to me most was the grace with which they handled the situation. Their ability to stay calm, measured, and professional amid such abrupt chaos was a testament to the very qualities that define their work. It was a reminder to us all that the skills journalists use to navigate warzones, such as emotional stability, resilience and clarity, are equally vital in navigating the conflicts of daily life.  

To watch recordings of past events and access news and resources, visit the Disagreeing Well digital hub.  Go direct to the Disagreeing Well: Conflict Report event recording here.

We also run the Disagreeing Well Skills Video Series, written and hosted by Mia Forbes Pirie, international conflict mediator, coach and UCL alum. This series covers important resources and tips to navigate challenging conversations, learning to listen and making disagreeing well a positive learning experience for all.

About Hetvi Rutvikbhai Bhatt, UCL postgraduate clinical neuroscience student (author of this article)

I am a postgraduate clinical neuroscience student at UCL. I enjoy exploring complex ideas and turning them into accessible narratives for a variety of audiences. From science communication to creative expression, I love using the art of storytelling to connect with people. Catch me being inspired by the smallest things and being fuelled by the biggest dreams!       

(Photo credit: Mstyslav Chernov)