How Biased War Coverage Weakens Support for Ukraine

Since the 24th, I have carried a strange feeling that won’t let go: it seemed to me that Western journalists were presenting the news with a certain tilt toward Russia. This biased war coverage wasn’t about blatant lies — no,, there was no obvious playing along, no blunt propaganda. Every report looked completely factual.

Yet the uneasy sense only kept growing stronger. For several days I could not understand what exactly was wrong. The more I read, the more I felt that something subtle was constantly shaping the narrative. And then, finally, it struck me — and now I will try to explain briefly what is really happening.

The dates and facts are imaginary, but the principle will be clear.

Dates and facts for explain:

• On the 24th the news said: Russian tanks in Mariupol. A column of Russian vehicles in Kyiv.
• On the 25th: Russian paratroopers landed in Mariupol. Kyiv surrounded, tank columns moving toward the center.
• On the 26th: another tank column rolled into Mariupol, more tanks advanced toward Kyiv’s center.
• On the 27th: more tanks entered Mariupol, more tanks marched through Kyiv.
• On the 28th: two columns pushed into Mariupol, endless columns into Kyiv.

And between titles: blood, guts, bombings, humanitarian catastrophe. Electricity cut, water stopped, gas pipeline blown up. Then casualty numbers. Maybe an interview with someone covered in blood. Every photo shows fear and destruction. And again: all of this is factually correct.

If you read only these reports, you picture Kyiv stuffed with Russian tanks, every street occupied. People without food, water, heat, or shelter. A total collapse. A couple of days more and they will die like flies in winter, eating each other.

Example of Unbiased War Coverage:

The column of tanks that appeared in Mariupol and Kyiv on the 24th — Ukraine destroyed it the next day. The same happened the day after, and the day after that, and it will keep happening. Paratroopers got wiped out as well. Engineers restored power, fixed the water supply, repaired the pipeline. Food reached people. Nobody starved. Ukrainians stayed focused, motivated, united. Ukrainians supported each other, sang, and danced with Javelins. At the same time, they mercilessly trolled the orcs — yet foreign media stayed silent.

That’s the problem. People read the news to learn the truth, but instead they drown in doom. Readers think “everything is lost.” Yes, human psychology craves bad news — it feels vital for survival. But journalists must also take responsibility. They call media the fourth estate for a reason.

I could forgive it in long analytical pieces — maybe editors reject them for lacking enough “blood.” But even live updates look the same. One-line news, posted hours apart, while during that time Ukraine beats back attacks and restores electricity. Why not write: “Ukrainian sources confirm the tank column in Kyiv was destroyed. The gas pipeline is working again.” It takes thirty seconds to type. Yet I rarely see such lines.

This way, Western media build a picture of inevitable defeat. Readers abroad conclude: “Ukraine is doomed. Why send help? They will surrender anyway, and we’ll waste our money.”

Truth About War:

Meanwhile, Ukraine stands determined to tear out this viper’s stinger and turn it into boots. And as for the one who unleashed it — his hide will serve as a doormat for a doghouse, or line a pigsty so pigs won’t freeze in winter.

So I say to Western journalists: with this biased war coverage, you serve dictators more than democracy. People abroad never see the full picture. Maybe it’s intentional, maybe not. I want to believe it isn’t. But journalism in the free world must become more balanced.