Capturing Conflict: The Evolution of Social Media as a Modern Battlefield
The influx of images and footage from Israel and Gaza streaming on our phones serve not only to document the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas but also play a significant role in shaping its narrative. Horrific and disturbing images of slaughter, genocide and violence have flooded the Internet, depicting the absolute terror being inflicted on innocent civilians, including children.
But first, where does war photography stem from originally? Well, cameras have been documenting war long before the new age of social media. It can be traced back to 1855 when British photographer, Roger Fenton, travelled the battlefields of Sebastopol, documenting the war through the medium of photography; a possibility made real by the invention of cameras in the 1830s. It is important to note that early photographic equipment was ill-suited for recording movement and dynamic scenes. 19th-century cameras often employed a silver-coated copper plate to generate a single image, a process that was time-consuming and did not allow for immediate development. Consequently, early photographers focused on capturing static aspects of war, including staged portraits of soldiers, the landscape before and after battles, and recreations of action sequences.
In the 20th century, photographic equipment improved immensely, enabling professional photographers to cover many major events and conflicts. One such photographer was Robert Capa who covered the Spanish Civil War, the Second Sino-Japanese War, the D-Day landings and the fall of Paris before his death by a landmine. Moreover, World War I marked one of the early instances when cameras had become compact enough to be carried by an individual. A Canadian soldier by the name of Jack Turner smuggled a camera to the battlefront and photographed the scene. Journalists and photographers today are protected by international armed warfare, however, these protections have limits as they often find themselves targeted by warring groups. The perils of war photography have escalated, with certain terrorists singling out journalists and photographers. Notably, during the Iraq War from 2003 to 2009, 36 photographers and cameramen were either abducted or killed.
War photography has historically served a civil and moral purpose, enabling the public to be well-informed on the discourses of war. This was especially pertinent in the 20th century at a time where images could circulate easily. These photographs were also used as historical records, providing viewers with a more authentic and objective perspective on war and other events than what any artist could draw or any author could write. However, some may argue that war photography is becoming increasingly explicit these days and much greater in number, thus desensitising viewers to the true horrors of the violence and conflict inflicted by said wars. This phenomenon often leads to "sympathy fatigue," undermining the very purpose of war photography.
Contemporary media, documenting the fighting in Syria, Ukraine, and Gaza (to name a few) are often made by amateurs, with low quality and pixelated images easily taken on a cell phone thus creating a sense of intimacy. People from all over the world are witnessing the events occurring in Gaza, yet the fighting might as well be happening on another planet.
On our small screens, we are now closer to war than ever before. We are farther than ever from making sense of it.
Important to note is that these widespread social media posts have become platforms for misinformation: A video circulated on the Internet which was supposedly footage of a Hamas militant shooting down an Israeli helicopter. It was viewed 230,000 times but was in fact, not real. The recording came from a video game called Arma 3. There have been other instances of this in the form of memes, hate speech and manipulation of media making it hard to tell what is real and what is fake. 24 hours after the Hamas attack, the hashtag “TraitorsFromWithin” became the most trendy hashtag on X, formerly known as Twitter. Another example is the pro-Hamas account called Gaza Now which shared an image suggesting that former left-wing Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, was fleeing the country. The image was undated and only showed him in the baggage claim at an airport. Another rumour circulated claiming that the 1,616-year-old Greek Orthodox Church of Saint Porphyrios was destroyed during Israel’s bombing of Gaza. However, church officials have confirmed that the structure still remains intact.
These are only a few examples of the disinformation spreading like wildfire on social media. It is important to note that the situation in Gaza is complex. Consequently, one should approach all information on social media with a critical eye, recognizing that the platform is often misused to spread falsehoods and hate speech.
