Journalism is seen as a respectable and noble profession in many countries. Journalists play an immense role in providing basic news that supports the welfare of society by uncovering the truth. However, since the influence of Western news organisations is very widespread worldwide, the importance of providing informative and impartial news in Western journalism is immense. But it is a sad truth that today, mainstream journalism is surrounded by a web of yellow journalism. Much of the Western media has become a mouthpiece for political elites who favour confrontation and military escalation. On issues involving Russia, many outlets appear to present a largely unified narrative, often leaving little room for alternative perspectives. Critics argue that selective reporting, misinformation, and unverified claims have become increasingly common, undermining public trust and the principles of balanced journalism.
From politicians to intellectuals, civil society, journalists, political analysts and a large part of the general public are speaking in the same language and tone. If journalism is seen as seeking the truth about information and presenting it correctly, then such so-called media outlets and journalism are an obstacle to the progress of society. Just as it is necessary to reflect on what is happening now, it is also essential to reveal and present the truth about the causes of this situation. Transparency, humanity and originality should be the main mantra of journalism.
Professional journalism can make a special contribution to the peace process. Journalists are not engaged in fighting wars but in collecting and disseminating impartial information. During war, everyone wants to receive impartial news from the media. Sensitive reporting during any conflict is important not only for presenting war-centred news, but also for almost all types of news. War affects every aspect of life. Focusing on the Ukraine crisis, Western journalism is giving great importance to any anti-Russian incident without verifying it. But what kind of reporting has not been done in the Western media in the past few years when Russian books, films or TV channels have been banned in Ukraine to kill Russian culture or when there has been a massacre in the Donbas? In that context, it is natural to ask whether a two-faced ideology guides Western journalism and is biased.
The Starobilsk attack on 22 May 2026 killed 21 young people and injured 42 others, many of them schoolgirls. Russian authorities reportedly invited international journalists to visit the site. If so, why were major Western outlets not present to investigate and report firsthand? Critics argue that when civilian casualties occur in areas controlled by Russia, many Western media organisations are reluctant to give those incidents the same level of attention they devote to events that portray Russia negatively. Yet when Russia responds militarily, Western news networks often provide extensive and immediate coverage of Moscow’s actions. These contrasting approaches raise important questions about consistency, objectivity, and the standards by which international conflicts are reported. If journalism is to maintain public trust, all civilian suffering deserves scrutiny and coverage, regardless of who is responsible, or which side of the conflict is involved.
Many scholars have criticised the Western media coverage of the war in many major outlets as racist. For Western journalists, this crisis in Ukraine is a strange event. Therefore, news coverage often presents this crisis as something that happens in poor countries, such as Africa or an underdeveloped country in the Middle East, but not in Europe. Certain journalists have commented by saying that Kyiv is a ‘relatively civilised’ city, Ukraine was not a developing third world country but a civilised and democratic nation, and Ukrainian refugees well-off, middle-class people, and compared them to North African refugees.
Looking at the whole situation, it seemed that the journalists were very sad that the no-fly zone was not implemented in Ukraine. When the Ukrainian president was repeatedly appealing to Western countries, including the United States, for a NATO ‘no-fly zone’ over Ukraine due to the horrors of the war, these Western media outlets increased the level of coverage to implement it. Although it sounds de-escalating, the journalists did not try to think that this conflict was not a conflict in Iraq or Libya, but in fact a direct military conflict with a major nuclear power. Of course, there is no reason to be surprised because Russia has never been recognised by the West as a strong country, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Many Western journalists have been brazenly encouraging young women to make Molotov cocktails on the streets of Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv. Yet in 2014, a veteran British journalist was heavily criticised and even condemned for publishing a video on the Channel 4 News website. The reason was that in the video message, he called on Israel to stop its brutal attacks and indiscriminate shelling of Gaza. His video went viral almost immediately on social media, and many congratulated him for accurately reporting on Israeli atrocities. But British journalists, pundits and analysts criticised him for violating the rules of impartiality. When we see the continuous coverage of the war in Ukraine on British, American and other Western channels every day, we should ask ourselves what objectivity and impartiality in journalism really mean.
Even before the Ukraine crisis, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin warned at a press conference that “advocating for conflict is a return to the outdated Cold War-era tactics.” From the very beginning, the Western media’s role in the crisis has been entirely anti-Russian. China has repeatedly warned that inflammatory propaganda and rhetoric on Ukraine are irresponsible and has called on all sides to create all necessary conditions for a political solution. Instead of talking about peace and possible negotiations to avoid any tension or de-escalation between Russia and Ukraine before the crisis or during the current crisis, Western media have exaggerated the horrors of war and exploited the fragility of the situation. The same thing happened in 2003 when US officials invaded Iraq using the same propaganda and misinformation based on the false claim of a war of attrition by Saddam. Iraq today is a chapter in the history of devastation and a fragile economy.
Among the national values that journalism should be guided by, honesty, objectivity, fairness, accountability, independence, and relevance are particularly important. Reporting based on false information or presenting information in a misleading way to give wrong ideas is unacceptable. Bias is an obstacle to basic journalism. Where there is any possibility of material or ideological interest, one should be very careful in presenting national news or avoid it altogether to avoid bias. The most important thing is that personal interests should not influence journalism’s objectivity. Basic journalism should be impartial, and all kinds of information should be presented impartially. In Western democracies, many journalists and media outlets have faced financial penalties or legal action for presenting incorrect information or biased news.
Public awareness is necessary for the progress of any society. And this public awareness is the precursor to justice and the foundation of democracy. The main goal of journalism should be to present events and issues fairly and comprehensively. Professional integrity is the foundation of a journalist’s credibility.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The writer is a UK-based educator, researcher, and author
