A Reflection on Globally Accepted Principles for Reporting in Conflict Zones

Amid the military clash between Iran and Israel, heated debates swirl around the responsibilities of the media. The arrest of a journalist from Shargh newspaper, the bombing of Iran’s state broadcaster (IRIB), and Mohammad Ali Abtahi’s claim that media should bolster armed forces during wartime have sparked serious questions about impartiality, propaganda, and ethical boundaries. This essay, grounded in the core principles of global journalistic ethics—drawing from frameworks like the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), and United Nations guidelines—explores the duties, challenges, and red lines of war reporting. Its aim is to offer guidance for organized media and media activists, particularly Persian-speaking journalists outside Iran, while helping audiences distinguish professional outlets from propaganda tools.

Responsibilities and Challenges of Organized Media

Commitment to Truth in the Fog of Information Warfare
At the heart of ethical journalism lies the pursuit and reporting of truth—a task that grows doubly critical during war, when the dense fog of “information warfare” obscures reality. Organized media must verify information meticulously and refrain from republishing unconfirmed claims from conflicting parties as definitive news. According to the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ), journalists engaging with armed groups or military forces must identify themselves clearly, assess the political, social, and ideological context to ensure safety and fair reporting, and strive to minimize the influence of personal biases. The goal is to remain aware of one’s own leanings while reducing their impact on the story.

It’s also worth remembering that war brings anxiety and emotional strain for everyone, including journalists. While these feelings are valid and understandable, they should not be treated as a strength in professional work. We can all empathize with a news anchor at IRIB who, under the stress of a bombing, might momentarily lapse into bravado instead of maintaining professionalism. There’s no fault in the human response, but the problem arises when such theatrical behavior is mistaken for the gold standard of journalism, prompting others to mimic it for clout. In the world of reporting, we are not the story.

When interviewing survivors, journalists must take care to avoid causing further harm. They should introduce themselves clearly, explain what information will or won’t be published, and steer clear of questions or phrasing that could trigger distress, show insensitivity, or place undue pressure on the interviewee (e.g., “If you don’t let me publish this, you’re complicit in the bloodshed”). Start with facts, make no promises—especially about publication, which may not be in their control—or commitments beyond their professional scope, like offering personal help in exchange for an interview. Humanitarian aid or promises of assistance are part of human decency, not journalism; if you can help, do so regardless of whether someone speaks to you. Ultimately, our duty is to gather the most accurate stories, capture the lived experiences of people, and report them to the only group we answer to: our audience. We don’t work for armed forces, national security councils, armies, political parties, or some imagined greater good. We work for the public, helping them see reality through the dense jungle of misinformation, media warfare, and countless other obstacles.

The Pitfall of Overusing “Breaking News”

Obsessively slapping “breaking news” on every claim, even unverified ones, erodes public trust. Designed for urgent, confirmed reports, the term loses its weight when overused, leaving audiences confused. As the Poynter Institute notes, this practice fuels news fatigue and skepticism. In the Iran-Israel conflict, media outlets that label every minor claim—like a single missile launch—as “breaking news” risk misleading audiences and tarnishing their credibility.

Why Republishing Claims Is Dangerous

Repeating unverified claims from armed forces, such as casualty figures or military successes, can amplify propaganda. In the Iran-Israel conflict, Iranian state media claimed their missile strikes targeted an Israeli military command center near a hospital—a claim the New York Times questioned for lack of evidence. Similarly, Israel’s claims of “precise” strikes often obscure widespread damage to infrastructure and civilian casualties, like reports of 224 Iranian deaths versus 24 Israeli ones (The Guardian). If republished without scrutiny, such claims spread misinformation and escalate tensions. The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) has shown how state actors use AI-generated images and deepfakes to shape public opinion.

We must also remember that not every statement from a military’s Twitter account, PR team, or spokesperson is inherently true or urgent. Journalists need to discern the difference. We all recall Saddam Hussein’s spokesman, Saeed al-Sahhaf, who spun lies hourly before global cameras. Just as his claims were repeatedly fact-checked, statements from military spokespeople or accounts are not automatically news, nor urgent, and must be verified. Even when reporting them, timing matters. When Israel’s military claims it destroyed 60% of Iran’s missile stockpiles, the statement lacks urgency for audiences and can’t be independently verified. Instead of stirring anxiety, a daily news summary could note that Israel’s defense ministry made the claim, but it remains unconfirmed.

Another key point is pressing officials for evidence to back their claims—acknowledging that some documents may be withheld due to wartime constraints—and being ready to challenge their information. (Example question to Israel: “Since 1998, you’ve claimed Iran is weeks away from a nuclear bomb. Why should we believe you now when the IAEA says Iran has no such program or is years away?” / To Iran: “If Iran’s nuclear program is solely for energy and requires only 6% enrichment, why pursue 60% enrichment?”)

Propaganda machines on both sides also bank on claims being forgotten in the flood of news. If the initial claim was about destroying nuclear facilities, but attacks later expand to broader targets, recalling the original claims and their shifts provides critical context.

Minimizing Harm and Human Responsibility
The principle of “minimizing harm” in wartime means recognizing that words and images can wound as deeply as weapons. Per the Handbook of Journalism Ethics (1995), reporters in conflict zones must be acutely sensitive to potential harm. For instance, a 2018 study found that 85% of Yazidi women encountered journalists who breached ethical standards, such as pressuring them to speak or failing to protect their identities (Medium: Reporting From the Rubble). Journalists must safeguard their sources, avoiding any disclosure that could endanger them.

However, anonymity is for the audience’s benefit and source safety, not the journalist’s convenience. Publishing unverified claims from “anonymous sources” just because someone claims authority is little more than chasing a nonexistent scoop. We must vet such claims, cross-check with other sources, and decide if the story merits publication at all.

Independence: A Firewall Against Propaganda

Independence is the cornerstone of ethical journalism, yet it faces intense pressure from nationalism, censorship, and political interests during war. The IFJ urges journalists to resist becoming propaganda tools and stick to reporting facts (IFJ Declaration of Principles). Ethics scholar Dennis Muller stresses that independence is vital for telling the full story of government war decisions (The Conversation). Cases like WikiLeaks and embedded journalists in Iraq show how reporting can become one-sided.

Protecting Journalists and Transparency About Constraints
Ensuring journalists’ safety is non-negotiable. UN Security Council Resolution 2222 (2015) classifies journalists in conflict zones as civilians, protected under international humanitarian law. Media outlets must prioritize their journalists’ safety with training, protective gear, legal support, and transparency about reporting limitations. For example, Iran’s crackdowns and arrests of journalists for “fake news” and Israel’s strict military censorship banning images of missile strike sites stifle information flow (Committee to Protect Journalists; Haaretz).

Avoiding Double Standards and Neutral Language

Consistency in reporting prevents double standards. Studies by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) show that language in headlines shapes perceptions. Using passive voice for Palestinian or Iranian casualties versus active voice for Israeli ones can skew audience views. Journalists must use consistent terminology and balanced representation.

We must also mind that words and their order carry meaning. In reporting a conflict between two UN-recognized states, we can’t call one a “regime” and the other a “government.” Nor can we describe missile strikes by one side as “targeted” and the other’s as “terrorist.” Audiences are smarter than some commentators or pseudo-journalists assume. If Iran’s leader hiding in a secure location is framed as weakness, then Israel’s war cabinet meeting in a secure building should be, too. Before anything, we should ask: Does this detail—beyond leaders protecting themselves in war—have any real value?

Responsibilities of Media Activists and Citizen Journalists

Media activists, often active on social platforms, play a dual role: they can bypass state censorship and amplify suppressed voices but risk unwittingly spreading misinformation. The ICFJ advises activists to verify information and rely on credible sources before reposting. They should avoid sharing dehumanizing content, like mocking videos or hateful hashtags, and focus on documenting human rights abuses and war’s human toll.

For Persian-speaking activists abroad, an added ethical layer exists: threats from the Islamic Republic against their families in Iran (Freedom House). They must constantly balance the public’s right to know with the moral duty to protect loved ones, requiring secure communication channels and meticulous decision-making.

Non-Negotiable Red Lines in War Reporting
Certain actions in war journalism are utterly unacceptable:

• Targeting Journalists and Media: Attacks on media facilities, like the IRIB bombing, violate international humanitarian law. Media are civilian targets unless directly engaged in military operations. The International Committee of the Red Cross states that propaganda alone doesn’t make a media outlet a legitimate military target.
• Deliberate Misinformation: Knowingly spreading lies or unverified claims to deceive audiences turns journalism into psychological warfare.
• Inciting Violence or Genocide: Content that explicitly fuels violence, ethnic cleansing, or hatred is not only unethical but often illegal under international law.
• Sacrificing Independence for Political or Financial Gain: Becoming a mouthpiece for a government, military, or political group crosses the line of independence.
• Censoring or Retaliating Against Peers: Participating in censorship or suppression of fellow journalists betrays the core principles of press freedom.

A Guide for Audiences: Spotting Professional Media vs. Propaganda

In this chaotic landscape, audiences bear a critical responsibility. To distinguish professional media from propaganda, consider these markers:

• Language and Tone: Professional media use objective, calm, fact-based language. Propaganda leans on emotional, divisive, and value-laden terms (e.g., hero, criminal, traitor).
• Sources and Transparency: Professional outlets cite sources (“per a knowledgeable official,” “per published documents,” “per Reuters”). If a source is anonymous, they explain why. Propaganda often resorts to vague claims (“it’s said,” “our sources say”).
• Balance and Comprehensiveness: Does the outlet reflect opposing views, even if it disagrees? Does it explore multiple narratives or push a single storyline? Professional media aim for a multidimensional picture.
• News vs. Opinion: Credible outlets clearly separate news from analysis and opinion columns. Propaganda blurs the line, presenting biased analysis as fact.
• Correcting Errors: Professional media admit and transparently correct mistakes—a sign of strength and truthfulness. Propaganda never acknowledges errors, often labeling exposés as enemy plots.

Beyond Impartiality, a Commitment to Truth

To the core question—should media abandon impartiality to support national defense?—ethical journalism offers a firm no. Impartiality doesn’t mean neutrality toward injustice or indifference; it means a commitment to a fair, balanced, fact-driven reporting process. Media that prioritize military agendas over truth not only lose audience trust but fuel hatred and misinformation, escalating conflicts.

That said, truly independent, free media isn’t impartial. Regardless of where it’s published or in what language, it has one vital bias: a bias toward truth.

Ultimately, media’s responsibility amid war’s chaos is to counter misinformation, be transparent about limitations, and focus on the human cost—from 224 Iranian lives lost to 24 Israeli ones. Only through this lens can media avoid becoming a weapon of war and instead serve as a tool for fostering understanding and, perhaps one day, peace.