The unprecedented escalation of the Karabakh Conflict along the Line of Contact has stirred the attention of the international press. In reaction to several available press reviews, among them Turkey and Germany, the question arose on Social Media: At which point is impartiality “turning into an apparently biased and subjective assessment.”
This CivilNet analysis surveys 26 reports from 11 countries to establish, whether the line between objectivity and impartiality in reporting is crossed by international media. Impartiality is understood as “treating all groups equal,” whereas objective reporting includes both the absence of emotions in judgement and the inclusion of relevant available facts. It finds that the impartial reliance on military sources distorts the objectivity across the reports.
The central testing ground for this distinction is the question, which side is the aggressor in the most recent upsurge in violence? Most prominently, the analysis shows that the vast majority of reports treat all groups equally. By maintaining impartiality, no country is designated as aggressor in the escalation. British BBC maintains for instance that “every year, hundreds of people, including many civilians, die along the Line of Contact.” Thus, the conflict is portrayed as a spiral of violations of the ceasefire.
Impartiality by Omission of Facts
“Two voices, two stories,” is the opening line for coverage in German Deutsche Welle, showing that both adversaries accuse the opposite of having provoked the escalation through infiltration attempts. Unusual in this picture is Euronews’ focus on dead Azerbaijani teenagers, which labels Armenia as the aggressor. In all 26 articles, the story reads the same – with focus on impartiality. Thus, there is a trend of exclusively using military and governmental sources to establish this angle, which in turn diminishes objectivity in reporting.
There is one specific example for this. As CivilNet reported, a humanitarian convoy of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) came under adversary fire near the border village of Chinari. This is one of the most prominent cases of civilian targeting in the recent escalation of the Karabakh Conflict. Of the 26 reports surveyed, only the two Swiss media outlets make reference to the ICRC incident. The NZZ newspaper writes that the vehicle “came under fire” and the state broadcasting agency SRF adds that the ICRC was helping “the population.”
Both articles refuse to write that Azerbaijani snipers committed this ceasefire violation. Accordingly, there is also no explanation that the ICRC humanitarian mission was geared towards the Armenian population. This specific case establishes impartial reporting, without being objective, as an integral part of the truth is left out from the context.
When Objectivity and Impartiality Clash
A further element of analysis centers on an unavoidable principle. Reporting the deaths on both sides of the conflict as well as the governmental responses to the incidents, one country must be named first. In this sense, it is startling that in the vast majority of reports worldwide, the Azerbaijani reaction is introduced prior to the Armenian one. The article by Chilean radio station Bio-Bio is one of the rare cases, which introduce the topic with reference to Armenia’s Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan.
Additionally, the deaths on the Azerbaijani side are listed first throughout each of the 26 reports. Certainly, this could be a coincidence, but nonetheless it creates an impression of Azerbaijan suffering first from the deaths. A reporting style, which implicitly paints Azerbaijani action as retaliation against Armenia can then hardly be called impartial.
Admittedly, objective reporting sometimes clashes with impartiality. Most of the reports refrain from clearly labeling either side of the conflict as guilty of the escalation. This goes with the goal of impartial reporting. At the same time, the number of deaths on the Azerbaijani side is officially higher than the losses of Armenian Defense Forces. Objectively reporting these figures creates a similarly partial result as the order of countries analyzed above. This is due to the fact that no article attempts to place the differences in casualties into the context.
The Role of Rhetorics
Considering that domestic analyses on this issue do exist, the decision to omit context results in a clash between impartial and objective reporting. With respect to the reporting of numbers, three articles stand out. Ireland’s leading newspaper Irish Times is the only one to not report death per country, but only the total toll. Spanish online newspaper El Diario and ABC however exclusively report deaths on the Azerbaijani side.
In addition to these two bold cases, pro-Armenian and pro-Azerbaijan biases become most salient in the presentation of the context to the conflict. German magazine Telepolis argues that international law does not necessarily see Nagorno-Karabakh as a province of Azerbaijan. This position stands contrary to all other articles and shows a clear pro-Armenia bias. Argentinian newspaper Clarin and British The Guardian remind their readers about Azerbaijan’s authoritarian government and arsenal of heavy armament also show a leaning towards Yerevan.
US-American reports as well as most German articles in turn show a pro-Azerbaijan bias. Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is described as “separatist,” “dependent on Armenia” and “fully impoverished.” In this tendency, most articles do not mention the aggressive war rhetoric by Azerbaijani officials, which Spanish newspaper El Pais labels as “triumphalist declarations pushing war rhetoric.” By omitting this contextual element, the objectivity of reporting suffers, as it constitutes a direct causal link to recent escalations.
Overstepping the Fine Line
Most reports remain impartial in their content. Only when speculating about causes for the upsurge of violence is this line crossed. US-American VICE magazine points to Russian actions on the Crimean peninsula as role model for Armenian policies towards Karabakh. In turn, Russian news agency RIA Novosti sees Western pressure on Armenia as instrumental in their decision to attack Azerbaijan. Coming from two very different directions, both sources nonetheless suggest that Armenia is responsible for the flare-up of incidents.
Lastly, the fine line between objectivity and impartiality can be traced to the visualization of the Karabakh conflict across the coverage worldwide. German magazine Telepolis and and British newspaper The Guardian both choose maps to explain the context. The British map however only marks the area of Nagorno-Karabakh, whereas the German one shows also the surrounding provinces under Armenian control. The minority of reports do not provide pictures, among them the New York Times and Austrian daily Wiener Zeitung.
The Irish Times is the only newspaper to show an Armenian serviceman. Other military depictions show Azerbaijani soldiers (Al Jazeera) and Azerbaijani tanks (El Pais, Spain). Again, the impression of this element of visual reporting is one of objectivity. But it neglects available powerful images of affected civilians in Northern Armenia.
A Need for Strategic Analysis
In conclusion, impressions on Social Media appear to be founded on international coverage. Civilian impressions, especially on the Armenian side, are excluded from the reports. This creates artificial impartiality in reporting across the 11 surveyed countries. Objective reports would have to include targeting of civilians in Northern Armenia as well as the ICRC incident in Chinari.
Moreover, these findings suggest an urgent need for strategic analysis of the conflict by international media. Azerbaijan’s amassment of heavy armaments and the importance of the Karabakh region for Armenian security are not illuminated. Lastly, international media would have to consider any potential motivation of either side to seek escalation along the Line of Contact. Ultimately, the results of these strategic considerations, would result in a partial yet objective assessment of the recent violence.
SOURCES:
Clarin (Argentina), 03.08.2014
Wiener Zeitung (Austria), 02.08.2014
Radio Bio Bio (Chile), 04.08.2014
Der Spiegel (Germany), 01.08.2014
Deutsche Welle (Germany), 01.08.2014
Deutsche Welle (Germany), 02.08.2014
Tagesschau (Germany), 02.08.2014
Telepolis (Germany), 03.08.2014
Irish Times (Ireland), 04.08.2014
Al Jazeera (Qatar), 03.08.2014
RIA Novosti (Russia), 04.08.2014
Neue Zuericher Zeitung (Switzerland), 03.08.2014
Schweizer Rundfunk (Switzerland), 03.08.2014
Washington Post (USA), 04.08.2014
AUTHOR:
Benedikt van den Boom, Visiting Journalist at CivilNet
