War as A Woman

Women first entered the conflict zones to report during the First World War, and since then the female population in war reporting has steadily increased. In recent years, a vast number of women are assigned to report as they provide a differing perspective of war to men, prioritising not only the aggressions and strategies but also the human part, that of people who are raped or hurt in the bedlam (Orgeret, 2016). Many editors and journalists agree that this has increased the value of conflict news as it brings to the audience a more holistic and complete view on war. In this essay, I will discuss the issues faced by female journalists in warzones and how such experiences impact their writing style and journalistic characteristics. To support this, analyses of female and male reportage on the 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be discoursed.

The term ‘war’ invokes an image of machismo and rough–edged manliness, and for a quite a while conflicts were reported by male journalists. This draws the theory that journalism is a largely “gendered” institution, especially conflict journalism, wherein the term “gendered” points to the clear, obvious, and consistent presence of divisions between men and women in all aspects of the profession, starting from opportunities to power distributions (Ruoho and Torkkola, 2018). The dangers of reporting in and from a hazardous environment has a larger cost for the female gender, be it physically, mentally, or professionally. Yet, these threats and discomforts do not hinder the quality and quantity of women war correspondents and their work.

When we consider the physiological implications of war reporting, the first things that come to mind are shootings, kidnappings, bombings, and physical assault. Women, on comparison, run a greater risk of these aggressions, especially with sexual and misogynistic motivations. Numerous journalists retell stories of such carnal assaults or misconducts, and feeling helpless in a conflict situation that is overwhelmingly dominated by men. Steiner quotes Wolfe when she draws attention to the motivations of rape, saying that rape is a crime of power and that it is done as an example of war strategy utilises the patriarchal subtleties and principles that emboldens men to behave aggressively (Steiner, 2017).

Alongside such fear of physical injuries and assaults, women find it troublesome to even urinate or menstruate safely in a conflict zone (Tumber and Webster, 2006). They are constantly in fear of invasion of privacy, physical assault, lack of care, and are left in want of support and empathy. This is because the social and geographical environment does not accommodate the singular needs of women and this deficiency has been utilised as a weapon against the female reporters as pretexts to restrict their access to wars (Palmer and Melki, 2016).

These experiences of vulnerability and exposures to dangers, paired with the natural nurturing and sentimental disposition of women, allow for a significant impact on the writing style of female war reporters. Women, often, carry a perspective of society that is led and rationalized by concepts of humanity and emotions. This point of view has been labelled by many scholars as “womanview”, wherein women focus comparatively more on aspects of human sentiments, emotion-filled stories, and the subjectivity of a situation, which consequently affects the structure, framing, sourcing, and tone of the journalistic pieces (Steiner, 2017). With this outlook on journalism, articles written by women tend to be more subjective when compared to male counterparts who prioritize the detached aspect of war, such as military strategies. Women, on the other hand draw the audience’s attention to the civilian damages, loss of life and livelihood, and the contextual significance of events in the conflict zone, achieving this through the association of their personal experiences, often as caregivers and mothers, to the plights of the affected civilians and providing them a voice through their journalism.

Studies have shown that women approach war journalism differently than men. The difference, though subtle, lies in sourcing of news. Their sources, more often than not, are the civilians and ordinary citizens of a war-stricken area and this is done as a venture to highlight the parts of humanity in the larger subject of war – an approach that is unique to the female journalists who often frown upon the objectivity and subsequent lack of empathy that their male colleagues embed in their pieces (Ross, 2001). To enhance the aspect of empathy in their articles, women tend to be in contact with their interviewees more often and more regularly than men and lean towards the female gender and children, who are the most affected and vulnerable in times of war, as their primary sources (Reich, 2013).
These contrasts in the gendered approach to was reporting is clearer upon the analysis and comparison of articles writer by women and men on the same topic. Currently, I will look at reportage on the war in Nagorno-Karabakh, focusing on articles specifically from BBC.

To provide content on the topic under discussion, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a long-running unrest between Armenia-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan that was aggravated in September of 2023 when Azerbaijan launched a large-scale military attack on the region to regain occupation of the land that resulted in mass displacement and vast ruin. The first article under scrutiny, titled “Nagorno-Karabakh: Armenians rush to help ‘brothers and sisters’”, is written by BBC correspondent Sarah Rainsford who was reporting from Goris and Kornidzor in Armenia at the time of the conflict. In her report, Rainsford underscores the plights and traumas of the civilians in their desperate search for refuge in central Armenia, away from the setting of mass ruin. Right away, the title offers an image of empathy and togetherness, mentioning directly the ordinary affected people. What is further noticeable about the writing is the use of story-telling and creative language that is littered abundantly with strong and emotion-invoking adjectives such as, “exhausted”, “frail”, and “scary”, among others, to detail the circumstances of the affected citizens. When compared with an article by BBC correspondent Michael Ertl on the same topic, titled “Armenia ready for 40,000 families after Nagorno-Karabakh surrender”, it is clear that Ertl penned the report with lesser flourishes, instead focusing on detachment. The title itself portrays an objective perspective as the indication to bereaved and estranged civilians is present but indirect. Furthermore, the language used within the text is flowing with facts and lacks any emotive adjectives or phrases, providing only a cold and superficial view on the conflict.

Another article on the topic, “'They bombed everywhere': Survivors recount Karabakh attack”, written by female Armenian correspondent Siranush Sargsyan and edited by two male colleagues in London, takes a comparatively objective approach than Rainsford’s article. Lesser adjectives are utilised, though the ones that are embedded are equally intense, like “horrendous” and “graphic”. However, what remains consistent in their style is the inclusion of female civilians, especially mothers, and children as their primary source of interviews. This is enhanced further by formatting the interviews in a storytelling and fiction-inspired way with sundry descriptive language to induce vivid images to retain readership and incite empathy of the audience. In Ertl’s article this component is lacking. Instead, Ertl is observed to use positions of authority as a primary interview, like the Prime Minister of Armenia. Even with the topic of discussion being that of the displacement of citizens and the large-scale refugee crisis, no interview of the ordinary people was done, further proving the comparatively excessive objectivity in Ertl’s article.

With all these subtleties in the work ethic of female war correspondents, it is often assumed that women provide an opposite point of view of conflict than articles written by men do. While this holds true in terms of focus points and discussed topics within the reports, women’s reportage is not completely detached or separate from the narrative put forward by the other gender. In fact, it is often observed that women’s angles “complement” that of the men’s, forming a cohesive harmony of battle strategies and how this affects the civilians as inhumane collateral damage – a balanced amalgamation of facts of war and the contexts of the loss and suffering caused by the same (Cardinal & Hattaway, 1999). The images of war provided by women also shine the light on the men, their bravery and steadfastness, alongside being an observer to the environment. This approach not only broaches the conversation of war as something that affects all equally but also feminises the topic that is traditionally patriarchal.

In this case, feminization occurs by way of language used, focused discussions, and type of reports. Men, due to their comfort in neutrality and writing succinctly, mostly pen short and brief news articles, including facts, statistics, and one-line updates of the brewing situations in their reports. Women, on the other hand, produce more long-form and lengthy detailed reports of war that allow a story-telling spin to engage as well as retain the readers’ attention and sentiments. These differences are often categorized into hard and soft news, but the reportage of women is better fit into the category of “human interest” which combines the traits of the two types of news for a more comprehensive output of stories of human suffering and destruction through a fiction-like retelling (Simpson, 2020). Additionally, women also play a huge role in the reinvention of public perception of women’s role in the war. Drawing the spotlight on the women that battle on the forefronts, are primary caregivers for families, that work as military or emergency medical personnel, and other vital roles in society, female correspondents have, and continue to, improve the visibility and support of other women in society through journalistic ventures.

The changing times and developing ages have opened the doors to more women in conflict zones as reporters and yet they are still a minority in the field (Franks, 2013). Dangers are still lurking around frontline reporters. Still, the quality of their work remains consistent but what remains to be improved is their safety and security within the zones. One general rule of thumb regarding women’s safety that is talked about most commonly is keeping loyal and trustworthy company of drivers, directors, and colleagues, around oneself, preferably male, and keeping in tune with the culture of the region that are often in place to ensure safety of civilians. Another solution often offered, though escapist, is that women should consider not entering such hazardous places (Orgeret, 2016).
In this essay, the significances and delicacies of women’s war writing in modern-day journalism are underlined. It is, then, apparent that women, though biologically more vulnerable to physical harm and physiological threats, command a unique value and quality of work that provides the important perspective of war and its impact – much like the missing piece in a puzzle. Despite limitations and risks, women continue to rise further in war reporting and a growing number of women are sent out to report in places of conflict, with women holding their own against the men.








Bibliography

• Cardinal, A. and Hattaway, J. (1999) ‘Introduction’, in Women’s Writing on the First World War. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 4–5.

• Chambers, D., Steiner, L., & Fleming, C. (2004). Women and Journalism (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203500668

• Franks, S. (2013) ‘Abstract’, in Women and Journalism. London, London: I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd, p. 1. Available at: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/research/files/Women%2520and%2520Journalism.pdf (Accessed: 01 February 2024).

• Orgeret, K., 2016. Women in War. Challenges and Possibilities for female journalists covering wars and conflicts, pp. 1 - 5.


• Orgeret, K., 2016. Women in War. Challenges and Possibilities for female journalists covering wars and conflicts, pp. 9.


• Orgeret, K., 2016. Women in War. Challenges and Possibilities for female journalists covering wars and conflicts, pp. 4.

• Palmer, L. and Melki, J. (2016) ‘Shape shifting in the conflict zone’, Journalism Studies, 19(1), pp. 126–142. doi:10.1080/1461670x.2016.1161494.

• Reich, Z. (2013) ‘Islands of divergence in a stream of convergence’, Journalism Studies, 15(1), pp. 71–72. doi:10.1080/1461670x.2013.790619.

• Ross, K. (2001) ‘Women at work: Journalism as en-gendered practice’, Journalism Studies, 2(4), pp. 539–540. doi:10.1080/14616700127064.

• Ruoho, I. and Torkkola, S. (2018) ‘Journalism and gender: Toward a multidimensional approach’, Nordicom Review, 39(1), p. 67. doi:10.2478/nor-2018-0002.

• Simpson, N. (2020) ‘The “Woman’s Angle” and Beyond: Allied Women War Reporters during the Second World War, pp. 44–45. Available at: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.uvic.ca/humanities/history/assets/docs/natasha-simpson---honours-thesis-2020---final.pdf (Accessed: 25 January 2024).

• Steiner, L. (2017) ‘Women War Reporters’ Resistance and silence in the face of sexism and sexual violence’, Media & Jornalismo, 17(30), pp. 14–14. doi:10.14195/2183-5462_30_1.

• Steiner, L. (2017) ‘Gender and journalism’, Gender and Journalism , p. 6. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.91.

• Tumber, H. and Webster, F. (2006) ‘Journalists under fire: Information war and journalistic practices’, Journalists Under Fire: Information War and Journalistic Practice. London, 44(5). doi:10.4135/9781446214039.