Spatiotemporal Unfixing, Image-Flow & Palinode in Photography of the Ukraine War

This study scrutinizes press photographs published during the first 6 weeks of the Russian War in Ukraine, beginning February 24th, 2022. Its objective is to shed light on the emotions evoked in Internet-savvy audiences. This empirical research aims to contribute to the understanding of emotional media effects that shape attitudes and actions of ordinary citizens. Main research questions are: What kind of empathic reactions are observed during the Q-sort study? Which visual patterns are relevant for which emotional evaluations and attributions? The assumption is that the evaluations and attributions of empathy are not random, but follow specific patterns. The empathic reactions are based on visual patterns which, in turn, influence the type of empathic reaction. The identification of specific categories for visual and emotional reaction patterns are arrived at in different methodological processes. Visual pattern categories were developed inductively, using the art history method of iconography-iconology to identify six distinct types of visual motifs in a final sample of 33 war photographs. The overarching categories for empathic reactions—empty empathy, vicarious traumatization and witnessing—were applied deductively, building on E. Ann Kaplan's pivotal distinctions. The main result of this research are three novel categories that combine visual patterns with empathic reaction patterns. The labels for these categories are a direct result of the Q-factorial analysis, interpreted through the lense of iconography-iconology. An exploratory nine-scale forced-choice Q-sort study (Nstimuli= 33) was implemented, followed by self-report interviews with a total of 25 participants [F= 16 (64%),M= 9 (36%),Mage= 26.4 years]. Results from this exploratory research include motivational statements on the meanings of war photography from semi-structured post-sort-interviews. The major result of this study are three types of visual patterns (“factors”) that govern distinct empathic reactions in participants: Factor 1 is “veiled empathy” with highest empathy being attributed to photos showing victims whose corpses or faces were veiled. Additional features of “veiled empathy” are a strong anti-politician bias and a heightened awareness of potential visual manipulation. Factor 2 is “mirrored empathy” with highest empathy attributions to photos displaying human suffering openly. Factor 3 focused on the context. It showed a proclivity for documentary style photography. This pattern ranked photos without clear contextualization lower in empathy than those photos displaying the fully contextualized setting. To the best of our knowledge, no study has tested empathic reactions to war photography empirically. In this respect, the study is novel, but also exploratory. Findings like the three patterns of visual empathy might be helpful for photo selection processes in journalism, for political decision-making, for the promotion of relief efforts, and for coping strategies in civil society to deal with the potentially numbing or traumatizing visual legacy of the War in Ukraine.

This article is written on the basis of the visual material collected during field trips to Ukraine in 2014, 2016, 2017 and in February–March 2022. The analysis is built on three concepts that have been meaningfully re-signified through war photography. One is human (in)security with its strong biopolitical connotations earlier described in the academic literature as a particular regime of care-taking in times of military conflicts. The second biopolitical concept that resonates in war photography is Giorgio Agamben’s academic metaphor of bare life as a direct effect of the violent projection of the “Russian World” onto Ukraine. Thirdly, the vernacular dimensions of war-time human insecurities, visualized through the prism of photography opens important avenues for discussing new facets of the concept of resilience.

Disinformation, Ideas without Borders, and the War in Ukraine

The book "Psychological Effects of Russian War in Ukraine" is a comprehensive exploration of the profound psychological impact experienced by individuals and communities amidst the ongoing conflict. The book delves into a range of interconnected components, providing a holistic understanding of the complex dynamics associated with war. Beginning with an examination of Extreme Psychology and Military Psychology, the book sheds light on the mental challenges faced by both soldiers and civilians in the midst of conflict. Special Psychology then delves into the unique experiences of vulnerable populations, such as children, refugees, and individuals with pre-existing mental health conditions. Environmental Psychology explores the reciprocal relationship between the war-torn environment and psychological well-being, highlighting the influence of physical surroundings on stress, trauma, and coping mechanisms. Psychodiagnostics and Psychological Counselling form a crucial section, addressing the identification and treatment of mental health needs through effective diagnostic tools and counselling strategies. The book extends its focus to Clinical Psychology and Neuropsychology, offering in-depth analyses of the long-term mental health consequences and neurological implications of war on individuals. Rehabilitation Psychology, Psychotherapy, and Psychological Correction follow suit, presenting various strategies for rebuilding lives and mitigating the psychological aftermath of trauma. Health Psychology and Psychological Well-Being emphasize the intricate interplay between physical health and mental well-being, exploring the psychological factors that contribute to overall health outcomes in the context of war. Psychohygiene and Prevention of Mental Health Disorders shift the focus towards preventive measures and hygiene practices designed to safeguard mental health amidst the challenges of war. Socio-Psychological Aspects of War broaden the perspective to encompass the societal implications of conflict, examining collective trauma, displacement, and the influence of social dynamics on psychological well-being. The book concludes by delving into Allied & Associated Topics, touching on aspects such as social support, media impact, and international collaboration in addressing the multifaceted psychological aftermath of war. "Psychological Effects of Russian War in Ukraine" serves as a comprehensive guide for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, offering valuable insights into the nuanced psychological dimensions associated with the ongoing conflict and its aftermath.

This article analyzes the motives for direct (in military actions) and non-direct (in administrative or military support actions) participation of Ukrainian women in the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian military conflict that began in 2014. It aims to reveal the motives that have led pro-Ukrainian women to take part in defending their country by allowing the participants of the study to speak for themselves. The article draws on twenty (20) e-interviews with women who were involved in the war in Ukraine and five (5) semi-structured interviews with people who due to their professional activities were able to observe the conflict from the inside (journalists, NGO workers, and war photographers), as well as secondary sources available. Content analysis of the interview data was implemented. The article identifies four main motives for participation in war: patriotism, grievances, personal loss and suffering, and women’s empowerment. This information corresponds with similar studies conducted elsewhere in the region.

The article clarifies the EU population's perception of the war in Ukraine and identifies its cross-cultural features. The findings are based on the data of the survey “EU's response to the war in Ukraine”, conducted in April 2022 by Ipsos European Public Affairs at the request of the European Commission. The target population of the study is the citizens of the European Union member countries, aged 15 years and over (N = 26053). In the perception of the Russian-Ukrainian war, informational and activity-related aspects were distinguished. The first one included indicators of informational involvement (frequency of following and discussing news about the war in Ukraine) and trust in various sources of information (national authorities, European authorities, NGOs, journalists, and social media). The second one consisted of indicators of approval of measures announced by the EU (economic sanctions against Russia and Russian oligarchs, financial support to Ukraine, military and humanitarian aid, the ban on broadcasting in the EU of state-owned Russian media, welcoming in EU people feeling the war) and satisfaction with reactions of main actors (national authorities, the EU, NATO, UN, USA, citizens of own country). For cross-cultural comparison of various aspects of Russian-Ukrainian war perception, several macro indicators have been constructed. Common characteristics of the war perception in EU countries were a high frequency of following news and discussing it with friends and relatives, approval of main EU measures aimed at supporting Ukraine; great satisfaction with the reaction of the main actors to the events in Ukraine. People do not equally trust various sources of information and the ranking of sources according to their credibility has cross-cultural differences. The most reliable sources were national and EU authorities and fewer people trust NGOs and journalists. Social media were widely untrusted. At the same time, there are two main patterns of trust in various sources. The first one is a combination of distrust in social media with high trust in other sources. The second one is distrust in most or even all sources of information.

An analysis of the evidence for adverse consequences of the internet cited on Susan Greenfield's website

Russia's war in Ukraine has marked an inflection point for the future of the global order and democracy itself. Widely condemned for waging a war of aggression, the Russian government has used its official social media channels to spread disinformation as justification for the war. This study examines how the Russian government has used its official Twitter accounts to shape English-language conversations about the war in Ukraine. 2,685 English-language tweets posted by 70 Russian government accounts between 1 September 2022 and 31 January 2023 were analyzed using BERTopic. Initial topic analysis shows the Russian government portrayed itself as a noble world leader interested in peace and cooperation, while deflecting blame onto the “Kiev Regime” for starting the war. A semantic similarity analysis was then conducted to compare the narratives originating from Russian government Twitter accounts to 149,732 English-language tweets about the war in Ukraine to estimate these narratives’ spread. Results show a segment of general discussion tweets to exhibit strongly similar language to Russian government tweets, but also highlight differences between the frequency and saliency of Russian government narratives. This work contributes one of the first analyses of disinformation originating from official Russian government social media channels about the war in Ukraine.

The war in Ukraine has triggered varying responses from people with Chinese heritage worldwide. These responses to the war highlight the diversities within global Chinese communities. They also serve as a lens through which we can observe how different Chinese communities intersect and interact through the internet and social media in a globalised world. This paper creates a few snapshots of juxtaposing opinions on the war in Ukraine among global Chinese communities. It identifies three preliminary patterns underlying these diverse opinions, pointing to directions for subsequent empirical studies. It also discusses how opinions toward the war in Ukraine expose the complex and complicated diversities and connections among global Chinese communities, calling for more scholarly efforts to situate Chinese studies within the global context.

IntroductionIn times of war, sourcing becomes a major challenge for journalists. Information is often unavailable because access is restricted or because reporting on the ground is prohibited, too dangerous, or even simply too costly for media having to work with limited resources. Which sources actually shape the news is a highly relevant question because news media still constitute the main channel of information for many citizens, especially when it comes to wars abroad. For a long time, scholars have diagnosed a dominance of official sources in war coverage but have not analyzed whether this is still the case with the advent of social media platforms, which potentially offer journalists other sources. Moreover, the integration of social media sources, such as Twitter or Telegram, is just one of many interdependencies in hybrid media environments. We aim to provide a more holistic understanding of sourcing practices in times of war by analyzing to what extent information from government and military sources, social media, other news media, and news agencies is featured as a main source in reporting on the war in Ukraine.MethodsIn our paper, we examine how 13 online media in Switzerland cover the war in Ukraine during the first 3 months after Russia's invasion—an example of a period in which journalists must typically identify reliable sources for reporting on the events surrounding such a war. Using a manual content analysis of 1,198 news articles, we analyze the sourcing practices that are visible in the reporting.ResultsOur results clearly show that information from other news outlets and social media and, above all, from news agencies plays an important role. Structural features of media types lead to distinct sourcing practices. Heavily commercialized, advertising-based media rely on news agency reports, other news media, and social media much more than subscription media or public service media. However, in all media types, actors from the government and the military are the most important source type.DiscussionOur study reveals patterns old and new in terms of sourcing practices war coverage in a European country not participating in, but affected by, the major war in Ukraine.

The aim of this research is to investigate the role of social media platforms Twitter, Facebook and Instagram in promoting civic activism of Latvian society in the context of the Russian war in Ukraine in 2022. The theoretical part of the research includes a description of social media usage habits, communication patterns of opinion leaders and non-governmental organizations on social media, communication flow patterns, as well as civic activism trends on and off social media. The results of the study were obtained through citizen of Latvia survey, content analysis of social media publications of opinion leaders and non-governmental organizations, and semi-structured interviews with opinion leaders Reinis Pozņaks and Tomass Pildegovičs, and representatives of non-governmental organizations “Tavi draugi,” “Gribu palīdzēt bēgļiem”, and “SOS palīdzība Ukrainas armijai”. The study identifies the role of social media in promoting civic activism of Latvian society in the context of the Russian war in Ukraine in 2022, examines potential features of slacktivism, considers the aspects of social media communication of opinion leaders and non-governmental organizations and their role in supporting Ukrainian society, armed forces and refugees. Social media, as opinion leaders and non-governmental organizations point out, have played a crucial role in mobilising the Latvian public in support of the Ukrainian society, armed forces and refugees, and have been a key communication channel to reach and inform the public.

The first two months in the war in Ukraine through topic modeling and sentiment analysis

Depressive symptoms and psychological pain experienced by Polish adults in the context of both the war in Ukraine and the COVID-19 pandemic

The popularity of social media has significantly contributed to its widespread use by different age groups of users, including children and seniors. In the online environment, especially on social media, users can encounter many threats, mainly fake news and disinformation. Although fake news and disinformation have been around for a long time in the Internet environment, the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, as well as other crises, have highlighted the dangers of their spread through the Internet, especially on social media, their impact on individuals, on the economy, and on society. This chapter discussed the main risks, but also the opportunities provided by social media during the last crises. It brings closer the change in media behavior and the use of social media during COVID-19 and the military conflict in Ukraine, the shift of paradigm in using social media, as well as the possible methods to fight disinformation.

Charity organizations’ accountability is crucial for their work and existence, as these organizations depend on continuous public donations. Meeting the needs of all stakeholders places additional challenges on charities and forces them to use different ways/forms of accountability. Recently, social media (SM) has been extensively used for both charity fundraising and reporting/accountability. With few exceptions, the current literature describes this process as rather one‐sided—where charity organizations pursue their agendas without engaging with or responding to crowds accessing their SM. This research uses netnographic and interview data to investigate how public SM engagement reconfigures a charity's accountability during wartime. We utilize the case of a significant Ukrainian charity fund that gathered over USD 110 million in donations in 2022 via SM to meet the needs of that country's army as well as victims of Russia's War in Ukraine. SM enabled crowds to question and critique the fund's accountability, generating a crowd‐based accountability dialog which required the charity to respond. Consequently, the charity evolved dialogic accountability processes between the crowd, the fund and its celebrity founder, the latter playing a mediating role in the fund's dialog with the crowd. This study adds to the literature on online publics and crowd‐based accountability as dialog. A particularly significant facet of this study concerns the highly sensitized context where, despite the exigencies faced, donors’ expectations of accountability remain high. Charity organizations, other nongovernmental organizations and governments can learn from this use of SM as a crowd‐based accountability tool to enable real dialog during significant crises (in our case, Russia's War in Ukraine).