By: Kelly Chia, Staff Writer
On February 25, 2022, CBS news reporter Charlie D’Agata said, “This is a relatively civilized, relatively European — I have to choose those words carefully, too — city where you wouldn’t expect that or hope that it’s going to happen.” This was in response to Ukrainian citizens fleeing their country. D’Agata also said that Ukraine wasn’t a place like Iraq or Afghanistan with decades of conflict.
Despite D’Agata’s apology, this is only one example of how comparisons to the Middle East have highlighted biases on the type of refugee people should feel sorry for. The kind with “blue eyes and blonde hair,” as a Deputy Chief Prosecutor on BBC put it. Disturbingly, Daniel Hannan on The Telegraph wrote, “War is no longer something visited upon impoverished and remote populations. It can happen to anyone.” These aren’t commentators from right-wing networks like Fox News. These are mainstream sources confidently revealing their biases against non-white, non-European people.
It is aggravating for these commentators to suggest any nation should expect conflict. It reinforces harmful stereotypes that war and tragedy are normal in some nations. It is dehumanizing for refugees’ experiences with war to be weighed against each other — war is unjustified no matter where it happens.
I want to be clear that this isn’t to detract from condemnations of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, despite the Kremlin’s best attempts. War and occupation should be condemned for its horrors, and Ukrainian citizens deserve our full sympathy and support. But it enrages me that Western commentators feel the need to justify why they can empathize with Ukrainian refugees by standardizing conflict in other nations. Why can’t they simply express their sympathy without delegitimizing the struggle of racialized peoples in the process?
It is especially hypocritical that Western commentators talk about war as a baseline in the Middle East, considering that American-led intervention has played a key role in destabilizing the area for the past few decades. It has largely been the actions of the Western military that have killed civilians and destroyed critical infrastructure.
In my lifetime, I’ve never seen war covered to this extent in Western media. The level of nearly 24-hour coverage has not been present for other populations that have suffered occupation. Our lack of similar reactions for Syria or Palestine highlight our biases.
To say the least, newsrooms need more cultural nuance and training with how they approach and comment on war. The Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association wrote, “This type of commentary reflects the pervasive mentality in Western journalism of normalizing tragedy in parts of the world such as the Middle East, South Asia, and Latin America.” When the media has this much influence on public perception, this is especially true.
The difference in coverage of this conflict is disheartening, too. More care and investment is needed in international reporting. Disproportionate coverage can push comparison between conflicts by treating one with far more importance. What hurts about these biased comments is that it reveals Western media was always capable of this kind of sympathy. It turns out they do understand how horrid occupation is for civilians. It’s just not extended to people who don’t look like them.
