THREAD: Since the start of Russian aggression in 2014, a consensus has emerged in Ukraine that international media coverage of the conflict is hampered by an over-reliance on Moscow-based journalists who lend the legitimacy of equivalence to demonstrably false Kremlin narratives.
Objections often revolve around the Kremlin-friendly framing of the conflict and the choice of terminology, with particular ire reserved for outlets that refer to a "Ukrainian civil war" or talk about Russian hybrid forces as "pro-Russian separatists".
There is also frustration over the "he said, she said" style of reporting that obscures Ukraine's status as a victim of Russian aggression. While world leaders are in no doubt over the reality of Putin's war, some reports treat it as mere allegations qualified by "Russia denies"
One of the problems here is the Russocentric approach to regional history and politics that many Moscow-based correspondents inevitably adopt. Then there are the pressures, both formal and informal, that any journalist living and working in today's Russia cannot avoid.
Ukraine has also failed to communicate its own narratives effectively or win the trust of the international community. Ukraine's communications efforts have often been confusing or inadequate, while Russia's messaging has been clear and coherent despite its factual shortcomings
It is hard to see a solution that would satisfy Ukrainian critics of international coverage. With no budgets for Ukraine bureaus, most media outlets face a choice of either using Moscow journalists/freelancers for Ukraine or not covering the conflict at all.
One thing Ukraine can do is focus on making life easier for international journalists seeking to cover the country. This means facilitating access to both locations and institutions in a manner befitting the country's European aspirations.
