King's College London

Researchers say one of the reasons is an overly narrow focus of the media role during crises rather than boosting their preventative role.

The research, authored by Professor Christoph Meyer from King's College London and Dr Chiara De Franco of the University of Southern Denmark, identifies three key pathways for media influence.

Published in the journal Global Responsibility to Protect, the article outlines how the media can contribute to "structural prevention" by supporting democratic institutions, "operational prevention" by issuing timely warnings of escalating violence, and "crisis response" by reporting on ongoing atrocities to galvanise political action and gather evidence.

However, the authors warn that media can also be co-opted by perpetrators to incite hatred as seen with radio broadcasts during the 1994 Rwandan genocide, or hindered to get access to audiovisual information from the ground as in the case of Myanmar.

The authors also suggest that journalism often struggles to cover the underlying drivers of violence. Professor Allan Thompson, a Carleton University journalism professor interviewed for the paper, noted that reporters often treat atrocities "like typhoons and hurricanes rather than being like climate change" - as sudden, unavoidable events rather than preventable processes with clear warning signs.

To counter this, the academics recommend greater attention to long-terms effort ins creating the regulatory, political and economic conditions in which high quality independent journalism can thrive – rather than often short-term and narrowly-focused efforts. They advocate for sustained investment in independent local journalism and specialised training for reporters on the drivers of mass violence as part of a promoting a different kind of journalism.

The article also highlights the success of collaborations between local reporters and international outlets, which can bypass censorship in politically-sensitive environments and ensure critical stories reach a global audience.

The authors conclude that bolstering high-quality, atrocity-sensitive journalism is one of the most effective countermeasures against the disinformation that can fuel conflict.