War journalism in the digital age: The interaction between professionals and user-generated content

Lesia Lysenko

doi:https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2024.84.12.17

Lysenko, L. (2024). War journalism in the digital age: The interaction between professionals and user-generated content. Amazonia Investiga, 13(84), 264-278. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2024.84.12.17

Воєнна журналістика в цифрову еру: Взаємодія між професійним користувацьким аудіовізуальним контентом

Ph.D. in Social Communications, Department of Journalism, Poltava V.G. Korolenko National Pedagogical University, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: LUY-0817-2024 - Email: lesia.lys@gmail.com

The research aims to study the attitudes of professional journalists to user-generated audiovisual content and to understand its role in war coverage. A cross-sectional study was used to answer the research questions using a mixed-methods approach. The approach incorporated a close-ended questionnaire and in-depth interviews with 12 professional journalists. The findings showed that user-generated audiovisual content is widely used in war journalism to complement news stories, fact-checking, publishing, research, and real-time reporting. Telegram and Facebook are extensively utilised to source user-generated audiovisual content. To verify user-generated audiovisual content, consulting with experts, cross-referencing official sources, geolocation, reverse image search, and implementation of visual verification platforms are used. Both benefits and challenges characterise user-generated audiovisual content. For example, these benefits include enhancement of the ability to cover stories in inaccessible areas, providing unique perspectives on events, more effective engagement with the audience, and seeding up the news. At the same time, the findings showed that most participants face difficulties verifying the authenticity of user-generated audiovisual content, particularly challenges in maintaining professional standards, technical problems, the necessity to verify the authenticity, and the use of sensitive content. The recommendations on integrating user-generated audiovisual content in war news reporting were developed to maximise the effect of user-generated audiovisual content. Some include using user-generated audiovisual content to report on war zones, avoiding user-generated content as the sole source, implementing legal standards for using user-generated content, avoiding misinterpretation, introducing fact-checking tools, and assessing source credibility. The outcomes can be implied in journalism, media studies, and conflict reporting.

Keywords: Audiovisual communication, media interaction, digital content, journalist strategies, media analytics.

Мета дослідження – вивчити ставлення професійних журналістів до користувацького аудіовізуального контенту та зрозуміти його роль у висвітленні війни. Для досягнення мети дослідження було використано перехресне дослідження на основі змішаних методів. Цей підхід включав закрите опитування 12 журналістів, а також інтерв’ю для отримання додаткової інформації з теми дослідження. Результати дослідження продемонстрували, що користувацький аудіовізуальний контент широко використовується у військовій журналістиці як доповнення до новин, перевірки фактів, публікацій, досліджень і репортажів у реальному часі. Telegram і Facebook використовуються для пошуку користувацького аудіовізуального контенту. Для верифікації користувацького аудіовізуального контенту використовуються консультації з експертами, перехресні посилання на офіційні джерела, метод геолокації, зворотний пошук зображень, а також платформи візуальної перевірки відео та фотозображень. У військовій журналістиці користувацький аудіовізуальний контент має як переваги, так і недоліки. Наприклад, ці переваги включають покращення здатності висвітлювати події в недоступних районах, різні перспективи бачення подій, ефективніше залучення аудиторії, швидкість повідомлення новини. Водночас результати дослідження показали, що більшість учасників стикаються з труднощами у перевірці автентичності користувацького аудіовізуального контенту, зокрема це дотримання професійних стандартів, технічні труднощі, необхідність перевірки автентичності та використання чутливого контенту. Щоб максимізувати ефект від використання користувацького аудіовізуального контенту було розроблено рекомендації щодо інтеграції такого контенту під час створення воєнних репортажів. Ці рекомендації включають: використання користувацького аудіовізуального контенту для репортажів із зони бойових дій; уникнення користувацького аудіовізуального контенту як єдиного джерела інформації; впровадження юридичних стандартів використання користувацького аудіовізуального контенту, створеного користувачами; уникнення неправильного тлумачення інформації; впровадження інструментів фактчекінгу; оцінка достовірності джерела. Результати можуть бути використані в журналістиці, дослідженнях, що стосуються засобів масової інформації, та під час висвітлення збройних конфліктів.

Ключові слова: Аудіовізуальна комунікація, медіа-взаємодія, цифровий контент, журналістські стратегії, медійна аналітика.

In the last two decades, journalism has been marked by transformative changes in producing, accessing, and distributing audiovisual information, primarily driven by the proliferation of digital platforms and social media (Fernández-Castrillo & Ramos, 2023). The rise of smartphones and affordable recording technologies has democratised content creation, allowing professionals and citizens to capture and share real-time audiovisual communication. As primary distribution channels, social media platforms enable rapid news dissemination, often bypassing traditional media (Kitsios et al., 2022). This shift has led to a decentralised media landscape in which audiovisual content is dominant in engaging audiences. The second generation of web tools, such as social media, blogs, and video-sharing platforms, empower users to participate actively but not consume the information passively (Peña-Fernández et al., 2024). Web 2.0 changed audiences from passive recipients into active contributors, enabling them to comment on articles, share news, and create content (Masip et al., 2019). This participatory culture has led to the rise of user-generated content (UGC) (Cervi, 2019; Peña-Fernández et al., 2024).

Professional journalism and UGC differ significantly in standards, credibility, and purpose, yet both play vital roles in contemporary media (Zhu et al., 2023). Professional journalism is characterised by adherence to ethical guidelines, rigorous fact-checking, and structured storytelling crafted by trained reporters within established institutions (Truyens & Picone, 2021). It aims to provide accurate, balanced, and contextually rich information to the public. In contrast, UGC prioritises immediacy and personal perspectives, offering raw, unfiltered glimpses into events (Gruszynski Sanseverino & De Lima Santos, 2021). Kerkhof and Münster (2019) indicate that UGC is becoming more critical for today’s media market. The scholars emphasise that it is widely used to enhance engagement, provide diverse perspectives, and offer real-time information (Kitsios et al., 2022). Some findings demonstrate that UGC helps build trust and authenticity since it showcases real customers endorsing products or services (Basile et al., 2024).

The recent findings show that UGC spreads rapidly during war, and it contributes to documenting events, providing real-time updates, and amplifying voices from affected regions (Fernández-Castrillo & Ramos, 2023). Often, UGC highlights stories that might be overlooked by mainstream media, shedding light on human suffering and resistance efforts (Zasiekin et al., 2022). In news reporting, UGC is a source of raw, on-the-ground content, such as videos, images, and firsthand accounts shared by individuals witnessing events (Breve et al., 2024). This material is particularly valuable during breaking news or conflict zones where professional reporters face limited access. However, the lack of verification in UGC poses risks of misinformation, requiring professional journalists to verify such material (Stewart, 2021).

The topic of the interplay between professional war journalism and user-generated audiovisual content (UGAVC) is critical in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war as it explores the evolving dynamics of how news and information about the conflict are produced and shared. This research helps to understand how these sources of information interact, complement, or sometimes conflict with each other and how they form public perception of the war. Additionally, this research highlights the changing landscape of war reporting, where the line between professional journalism and digital content becomes increasingly thin.

Accordingly, the research aims to study professional journalists' attitudes to UGAVC and understand its role in war coverage. The research addresses three questions. They are the following:

1) Do professional war journalists use UGAVC? How do they interact with it?

2) What are the benefits and challenges of UGAVC? Does this content affect professional standards and ethics?

3) How does UGAVC affect audiences?

4) What are the requirements for integrating UGAVC in war news reporting?

The research article explores the evolving dynamics of war reporting in the context of digital advancements. The introduction sets the topicality of the research problem by discussing the significance of war journalism and the emergence of UGAVC in the digital era, followed by a literature review that examines previous research on professional journalism practices and the influence of UGAVC. The methodology section presumably outlines the research design based on a cross-sectional survey to analyse the interaction between professionals and UGAVC. The results and discussion section presents key findings, such as the benefits and challenges of integrating UGC into war reporting, highlighting aspects like authenticity verification and ethical concerns. Finally, the article concludes by summarising the implications for journalism practices in the digital age and suggesting directions for future research.

UGC has become a widely studied phenomenon due to its profound impact on communication, media, and society (Kubin et al., 2024; Liaropoulos, 2023). The scientific sources demonstrated how UGC reshapes information ecosystems (dos Santos, 2022). In journalism, UGC is analysed to supplement traditional reporting, especially during crises (Cervi, 2019). Researchers examine its benefits and challenges, including misinformation, bias, and ethical implications of using unverified content (Kerkhof & Münster, 2019; Sang et al., 2024). The influence of UGC in marketing is another key focus. For example, several findings insist on the role of UGC in customer experience management (Gârdan et al., 2022; Sykora et al., 2022). Basile et al. (2024) explain the contribution of UGC to brand value co-creation. Also, Kitsios et al. (2022) present the employment of UGC in hospitality. Furthermore, some studies investigate UGC's role in facilitating collaborative learning in education (Okwilagwe & Jinadu, 2023). It is worth mentioning that information literacy is essential when people encounter UGC. In this context, some sources concern the formation of information literacy and skills of navigation of the complexities of UGC (Bhinder, 2020; Yeh & Swinehart, 2020). The recent findings show the role of UGC political activism and driving collective action in social movements (Aal et al., 2024; Yamamoto et al., 2022).

Recent studies prove that UGC is examined in different contexts during emergencies. Primarily, researchers investigate the use of digital content in covering war events (Liaropoulos, 2023; Maathuis & Kerkhof, 2023). Yadav et al. (2024) insist that digital content played a significant role in polarising views on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Some findings concern the ability of UGC to complement professional war journalism (Cervi, 2019). Gruszynski Sanseverino and De Lima Santos (2021) focus on integrating UGC into journalistic practices to present relevant information during a crisis. Some findings show the use of UGC in online newspapers to cover the Russia-Ukraine war (Fernández-Castrillo & Ramos, 2023). Besides, UGC is an instrument for countering terrorism by identifying threats and disseminating content that counters terrorist propaganda (Binder & Kenyon, 2022; Popovic & Kozar, 2023). The social impact of UGC is extensively discussed in the works of dos Santos (2022).

Academic inquiries also address the challenges of UGC (Kitsios et al., 2022; Shahbazi & Bunker, 2024) and understanding its emotional and psychological influence on audiences (Sang et al., 2024). Zasiekin et al. (2022) describe the psychological characteristics of UGC. Additionally, UGC often employs audiovisual communication that resonates deeply with audiences, enhancing its ability to influence opinions, attitudes, and behaviours (Fernández-Castrillo & Ramos, 2023; Leszczuk et al., 2023). However, some findings say UGC can also bring adverse psychological effects, such as anxiety, misinformation, or desensitisation, particularly during crises like wars or natural disasters (Kušen & Strembeck, 2023). According to Borges-Tiago et al. (2019), a person who generates audiovisual content is often fueled by profound motivation rooted in personal, moral, or societal imperatives.

Despite several challenges of UGC, scientific sources describe some successful cases when social media posts and videos documented conflicts, bringing international attention to war crimes and influencing aid efforts. For example, Meral and Meral (2021) explain the importance of digital content in the “Arab Spring” movement. Social media are also used to discuss the Syrian uprising, the civil war, and immigration (Miconi, 2020) or to protest the restrictions on women’s rights in Iran (Ahmadi et al., 2023). Hamas Elmasry (2024) focused on using UGC to cover the initial phase of the fifth Israel-Gaza war by popular news channels. A case study from the Russia-Ukraine war was described in the context of the formation of public opinion through UGC (Babenko et al., 2024; Geissler et al., 2023). Besides, some works refer to countering propaganda about the Russia-Ukraine war on social media (Hasan, 2024) and the significant emotional effect of UGC on audiences (Maathuis & Kerkhof, 2023).

The article addresses some controversies and debates surrounding the integration of UGC into professional war reporting. One central discussion deals with the tension between democratising news production and eroding journalistic standards. Some scholars argue that UGC enriches war journalism by providing diverse perspectives, real-time updates, and coverage from conflict zones (Berg et al., 2024; Maschmeyer et al., 2023). However, critics have concerns over the reliability and authenticity of UGC, emphasising the challenges it poses to maintaining ethical and professional standards in journalism (Basile et al., 2024; Sang et al., 2024). Another issue is the power dynamic between traditional journalists and citizen reporters, with some suggesting that UGC undermines the authority of professionals (Nah et al., 2024), while others see it as a collaborative opportunity (Kubin et al., 2024). Additionally, debates touch upon the use of sensitive content (Shahbaznezhad et al., 2021; Zasiekin et al., 2022). When these perspectives are examined, the research reveals the complexities of war journalism in the digital age and the need for responsible integration of UGAVC.

Therefore, investigating the use of UGAVC during war and its media interplay with professional war journalism is essential for understanding the dynamics of war reporting and its impact on public perception. As traditional media face increasing limitations in conflict zones, UGAVC has become necessary for documenting real-time events. This content, shared by individuals directly involved or affected by the conflict, offers valuable information about human experiences and war realities. Examining how this content interacts with professional journalism allows for a deeper understanding of media influence, the role of citizen journalism, media analytics, and the ethical challenges in war reporting. The interplay between UGAVC and professional journalism may help shape the understanding of conflicts globally, influencing political discourse.

The attitudes of professional journalists to UGAVC and the evaluation of its role in war coverage were carried out based on a cross-sectional survey study equipped with a mixed-methods approach. The approach incorporated a close-ended questionnaire among journalists and in-depth interviews to gain deeper information into the motivations, decision-making processes, and ethical considerations of UGAVC. This cross-sectional design allowed researchers to assess the current interplay between professional journalism and UGAVC during a specific conflict, such as the Russian-Ukrainian war. During the investigation of theoretical analysis based on gatekeeping (Salonen et al., 2022), agenda-setting (Geiß, 2022), and framing theories (Lindgren et al., 2024), combined with empirical data resulted in a comprehensive understanding of how professional war journalism and UGAVC coexist.

The cross-sectional study involved 12 journalists representing diverse media platforms – television, radio, print, online journalism, and hybrid media. The selection of informants considered the following criteria: (1) professional background (war reporting experience, journalism experience, inclusion in journalistic role); (2) media platform representation; (3) geographical relevance to Ukraine; (3) experience with media interaction with UGAVC; (5) awareness of journalism standards; (6) diversity in demographics (age, gender, nationality); (7) availability and willingness to participate. Table 1 shows the characteristics of informants.

The justification for the sample size and participant selection strategy stems from the need to comprehensively understand the interplay between professional journalists and UGAVC in war reporting. The sample size was calculated according to the study's qualitative or quantitative nature. The selection strategy prioritised participants actively engaged in war reporting or managing UGAVC in professional contexts. Besides, the sample size was statistically calculated to ensure representativeness and reliability.

The cross-sectional study questionnaire was an integral instrument for collecting standardised data from professional journalists on their experiences with UGAVC. It explored themes such as the frequency and context of its usage, verification practices, ethical challenges, impact on audience engagement, and media analytics. Distributed electronically through email and professional networks, the questionnaire ensured a broad reach and accessibility, particularly for journalists actively engaged in war reporting. The questionnaire validation process involved several critical steps to ensure its reliability and validity. Firstly, the researchers designed the questionnaire based on a thorough review of existing literature and theoretical frameworks related to war journalism and UGAVC. Secondly, the draft questionnaire was reviewed by a panel of experts in journalism, media studies, and digital communication to ensure the questions' relevance, clarity, and comprehensiveness. Thirdly, pilot testing was conducted with a small, representative sample of participants. It helped to identify the possible difficulties in understanding the questions. Table 2 presents the questionnaire used during the cross-sectional study.

In-depth interviews were employed as a complementary method to enhance the study's depth, focusing on integrating UGAVC into war reporting. These interviews provided a platform for journalists to discuss their personal experiences, share detailed accounts of specific challenges, and highlight innovative strategies for verifying UGAVC and ethical considerations for its usage. The questionnaire and interviews offered a comprehensive methodological framework to analyse the dynamic interplay between professional war journalism and UGAVC.

A mixed-methods approach was employed for data analysis to provide quantitative and qualitative outcomes. The quantitative data from the close-ended questionnaire was analysed as Likert-scale responses using statistical instruments such as descriptive statistics and frequency analysis to identify trends and patterns in integrating UGAVC by professional journalists. These findings quantified the frequency of usage of UGAVC, the challenges faced, and its impact on audiences. For the survey, the data was analysed using SPSS software. The qualitative data from in-depth interviews was analysed using thematic analysis, allowing for developing recommendations on integrating UGAVC into war news reporting. The thematic analysis involved manual methods and qualitative data analysis software like NVivo to systematically organise and analyse textual data.

Participants were provided with detailed information about the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits, presented in a clear format as a written consent form. They were also informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time. To ensure the confidentiality of participant data, personal identifiers were anonymised during data collection and analysis.

The literature review demonstrated that using UGAVC by professional war journalists became increasingly prevalent (Hamas Elmasry, 2024). The findings showed that journalists incorporate UGAVC into their war news reports to supplement their coverage (Fernández-Castrillo & Ramos, 2023). However, scholars insist that integration requires careful verification and ethical considerations to ensure the authenticity of the content and avoid spreading misinformation (Stewart, 2021). Besides, it was found that journalists often use UGAVC to provide a more emotional connection for audiences (Sykora et al., 2022). At the same time, the cross-sectional study proved that professional war journalists use UGAVC in their news reporting. Most use this content weekly and monthly (4 individuals each). Studying the interaction with UGAVC, it was found that 33,3 % use it to complement news stories and fact-checking. Besides, some journalists need UGAVC for publishing (17%) and research (8,4%). 25 % of participants stated that they interact with UGAVC during real-time reporting. Figure 1 shows the interaction with UGAVC.

The cross-sectional study also focused on using platforms to source UGAVC. The findings showed that most participants (4) use Telegram and Facebook to source UGAVC. Other platforms include Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok. Figure 2 presents the preferences of professional war journalists related to platforms for sourcing UGAVC.

The results prove that most journalists verify the content, but there were few examples of journalists using UGAVC in real-time reporting without verification. It was found that most participants consulted with colleagues and experts before broadcasting UGAVC (4 individuals). Other journalist strategies include cross-referencing with official sources, geolocation, Reverse image search, and visual verification platforms. Figure 3 shows the selection of journalist strategies for verifying UGAVC by professional war journalists.

Further, it is necessary to explain the benefits and challenges of UGAVC to understand its impact on modern journalism, particularly in enhancing real-time reporting and audience engagement.

The scientific sources revealed that UGAVC offers significant benefits and poses notable challenges in war reporting (Maschmeyer et al., 2023; Yadav et al., 2024). Among its advantages, UGAVC provides real-time comments from individuals directly affected by events, often filling gaps where professional journalists cannot be present due to safety concerns. Additionally, UGAVC allows for diverse viewpoints, democratising information dissemination. However, the challenges of using UGAVC include difficulties verifying content authenticity and accuracy (Kerkhof & Münster, 2019). Zhu, Lang, and Dietl (2023) admit that ethical considerations also arise. The cross-sectional study showed that professional war journalists face several benefits and challenges while integrating UGAVC into news reporting. Some benefits include enhancement of the ability to cover stories in inaccessible areas and providing unique perspectives on events compared to traditional sources. The benefits of UGAVC according to the study participants are given in Figure 4.

At the same time, scientific efforts were oriented towards analysing the challenges of UGAVC. The findings showed that most participants face difficulties verifying the authenticity of UGAVC. Also, many professional war journalists admitted that UGAVC contains sensitive content, and it is essential to publish it responsibly. The challenges of UGAVC revealed during the cross-sectional study are shown in Figure 5.

Then, the impact of UGAVC on audiences was studied since it is essential to understanding how it shapes public opinion, influences emotional responses, and affects trust in media during war.

During the literature review, special attention was paid to the impact of UGAVC on audiences by shaping their perceptions, emotional responses, and understanding of events, particularly during wars (Zasiekin et al., 2022). The findings showed that the impact is not always positive (Marukhovskа-Kartunova et al., 2023). At the same time, unverified or biased UGAVC spreads misinformation, polarises opinions, and erodes trust in media if not contextualised by professional journalism (Kerkhof & Münster, 2019). Additionally, the problem of authenticity of UGAVC was widely discussed in the scientific literature (Basile et al., 2024; Kerkhof & Münster, 2019).

At the same time, the cross-sectional study revealed that the use of UGAVC in war news reporting by professional journalists causes stronger emotions, anxiety, and stress. It also fosters a sense of urgency, influences audience opinions, and motivates them to take action. Moreover, it was found that in some cases, UGAVC helps build trust in news reports despite its ability to spread misinformation. Figure 6 summarises the impact of UGAVC on audiences.

Further, the findings showed that to maximise the benefits of UGAVC in war news reporting, it is essential to integrate it properly through thorough verification, ethical contextualisation, and alignment with professional journalistic standards.

Analysing scientific sources proves that properly integrating UGAVC into war news reporting is essential for ensuring accurate and impactful journalism (Zecchinon & Standaert, 2024). The findings showed that, when verified, UGAVC enhances storytelling, adds depth and authenticity to war coverage, and fosters greater audience engagement (Peña-Fernández et al., 2024; Selvarajah & Fiorito, 2023). However, improper use of UGAVC leads to the spread of misinformation, sensationalism, and audience mistrust (Hasan, 2024; Shahbazi & Bunker, 2024).

The cross-sectional study enabled the development of recommendations on the integration of UGAVC in war news reporting. Journalists admitted in in-depth interviews that these recommendations are crucial in Ukraine today, considering the ongoing conflict and the vital role of accurate information in shaping both domestic and international perceptions. The well-defined guidelines ensure that such content is verified, ethically used, and contextualised to prevent misinformation and propaganda. The recommendations are also essential for protecting the rights and privacy of content creators. When information is a necessary tool during war, straightforward strategies for integrating UGAVC responsibly strengthen the integrity and effectiveness of Ukraine’s war reporting. Figure 6 presents the analysis of recommendations for integrating UGAVC in war news reporting.

Therefore, the research focuses on the interplay between professional war journalism and UGAVC, investigating the opportunities and challenges of integrating this content into news reporting. It showed the necessity of developing ethical guidelines to verify and contextualise UGAVC, ensuring its responsible use while preserving journalistic standards.

The study is not without its limitations. First, a limited sample size may restrict the generalizability of the results. Second, the validity of the questionnaire was impacted by inexact question phrasing and reliance on self-reported data. These limitations prove the need for a cautious interpretation of the study’s conclusions and underscore the importance of refining research instruments and methodologies in future investigations.

The research concerns significant implications for journalism, media studies, and conflict reporting. It emphasises the necessity to elaborate the frameworks for verification, ethical use, and contextualisation of UGAVC, particularly in conflict zones where misinformation has negative consequences. For example, the findings will be helpful in the development of advanced verification processes and adopt technological tools, such as AI-based content analysis, to ensure the authenticity and reliability of UGAVC. Moreover, the research underlines the importance of training professional war journalists in digital literacy and ethical decision-making to effectively integrate UGAVC into their reporting practices. In this context, this study may contribute to developing an advanced training program for early-career war journalists in Ukraine to use strategies for using UGAVC responsibly and effectively in a rapidly evolving media landscape.

The study shows that UGAVC spreads rapidly during the war. It is used to complement news stories and fact-checking for publishing and research. Also, the cross-sectional study showed that Telegram and Facebook are extensively utilised for sourcing UGAVC. Other platforms include Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok, but professional war journalists do not frequently select them. At the same time, the special attention was paid to verifying UGAVC. The results prove that consulting with experts is the most preferred strategy. Other journalist strategies include cross-referencing with official sources, geolocation, reverse image search, and implementation of visual verification platforms.

The study revealed that UGAVC offers significant benefits and poses notable challenges in journalism, particularly war reporting. Among its advantages, UGAVC provides enhancement of the ability to cover stories in inaccessible areas, providing unique perspectives on events compared to traditional sources, more effective engagement with audiences, speeding up the news reporting process, and improving the diversity of voices in news reporting. At the same time, the findings showed that participants face difficulties verifying the authenticity of UGAVC, maintaining professional standards, and technical difficulties in editing and processing sensitive content. Also, many professional journalists have concerns about the ethical implications of UGAVC and issues regarding copyright. Then, the impact of UGAVC on audiences was studied, and the cross-sectional study revealed that the use of UGAVC in war news reporting by professional journalists causes stronger emotions as well as anxiety and stress. Also, it fosters a sense of urgency, influences audience opinions and motivates them to take action. In some cases, UGAVC builds trust in news reports, but some journalists admitted its ability to spread misinformation.

The recommendations for integrating UGAVC in war news reporting were developed during the research. They included the following: using UGAVC to report on war zones; avoiding UGAVC as the sole source; using UGAVC to provide visual and audio evidence for reports; not overusing UGAVC; implementation of copyright laws and legal standards of using UGAVC; avoiding misinterpretation; introduction of fact-checking tools; establishment of clear ethical guidelines for using UGAVC; assessment of UGAVC source credibility; and implementation of procedures to verify the authenticity of UGAVC.

The study makes an original contribution by offering a comprehensive understanding of the interrelations between professional journalism and UGAVC in conflict zones. Unlike previous studies that often focus on the technological aspects of UGAVC or its ethical dilemmas, this research examines its integration into journalistic workflows, clarifying its impact on modern reporting practices. This contribution is especially significant in the digital transformation of journalism, where UGAVC shapes news reporting, particularly from conflict zones with limited access.

Importantly, the findings significantly impact both theory and practice. Theoretically, the study advances the discourse on participatory journalism by showing the collaboration between professional journalists and citizen contributors. It provides a foundation for further theoretical exploration into the co-creation of news content and the ethical tensions arising from this collaboration. Practically, the study emphasises the need for media organisations to develop advanced training programs to address the challenges posed by UGAVC.

Future research could explore the long-term impact of UGAVC on the audience, particularly in conflict zones where information warfare is prevalent. Additionally, the research could examine the psychological implications for journalists who integrate UGAVC into their news reporting. Further studies could also concern technological advancements, such as AI tools and blockchain, for verifying UGAVC and addressing issues of trust and accuracy in real-time reporting. It is worth mentioning that future research could focus on cross-cultural variations in UGAVC usage, examining the impact of cultural context or regional dynamics on journalistic practices and the role of citizen journalism in conflict zones. These investigations could lead to the development of more accurate and reliable news reporting, ensuring that content from conflict zones like Ukraine is verified and reveals objective narratives.

Aal, K., Rüller, S., Krüger, M., Rohde, M., Tadic, B., Wulf, V. (2024). Political Activism on Social Media in Conflict and War. In C. Reuter (Ed), Information Technology for Peace and Security: IT Applications and Infrastructures in Conflicts, Crises, War, and Peace (pp. 411–433). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-44810-3_19

Ahmadi, R., Yagoubi, H., & Hussaini, M. (2023). Examining the Relationship between Social Activism and Social Responsibility of Women in Preventing Domestic Violence: A Case Study of Panj Tan area of Mashhad Province, Iran. Journal of Contemporary Philosophical and Anthropological Studies, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.59652/jcpas.v1i2.92

Babenko, V., Romaniuk, V., Viytovych, T., Zhmaka, Y., & Ovchar, Y. (2024). Social media and public opinion formation in times of war: A case study from Ukraine. Amazonia Investiga, 13(81), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2024.81.09.15

Basile, V., Brandão, A. & Ferreira, M. (2024). Does user-generated content influence value co-creation in the context of luxury fashion brand communities? Matching inclusivity and exclusivity. Italian Journal of Marketing, 2024, 419–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-024-00103-9

Berg, J., Fagerholm, A., & Strandberg, K. (2024). Quality User-Generated Content? A Case Study of the Quality of Online News Comments on the Site of Finnish Public Service Broadcaster Yle. Journalism Practice, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2024.2329759

Bhinder, N. V. (2020). Formation of information literacy among future officers at the English lessons. Scientific Bulletin of M. P. Drahomanov National Pedagogical University. Series 5: Pedagogical Sciences: Realities and Prospects, 78, 44–47. https://doi.org/10.31392/NPU-nc.series5.2020.78.09

Binder, J. F., & Kenyon, J. (2022). Terrorism and the internet: How dangerous is online radicalization?. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 997390. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.997390

Borges-Tiago, M. T., Tiago, F., & Cosme, C. (2019). Exploring users’ motivations to participate in viral communication on social media. Journal of Business Research, 101, 574–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.011

Breve, B., Caruccio, L., Cirillo, S., Deufemia, V., & Polese, G. (2024). Analyzing the worldwide perception of the Russia-Ukraine conflict through Twitter. Journal of Big Data, 11, 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-024-00921-w

Cervi, L. (2019). Citizen journalism and user generated content in mainstream media. New dialogic form of communication, user-engagement technique or free labor exploitation?. Revista De Comunicação Dialógica, (1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.12957/rcd.2019.41871

dos Santos, M.L.B. (2022). The “so-called” UGC: an updated definition of user-generated content in the age of social media. Online Information Review, 46(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2020-0258

Fernández-Castrillo, C., & Ramos, C. (2023). Social web and photojournalism: User-generated content of the Russo-Ukrainian war. Comunicar, 77(31), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.3916/C77-2023-07

Gârdan, I. P., Mauri, A., Dumitru, I., Gârdan, D. A., Maican, S. Ș., & Moise, D. (2022). User-Generated Multimedia Content Impact on the Destination Choice: Five Dimensions of Consumer Experience. Electronics, 11(16), 2570. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11162570

Geiß, S. (2022). The Agenda-Setting-Effects of News Factor Exposure: A Field Study Comparing the Transmission Paths and Impact of Issue Exposure and News Factor Exposure. Sage Open, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221091259

Geissler, D., Bär, D., Pröllochs, N., & Feuerriegel, S. (2023). Russian propaganda on social media during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. EPJ Data Science, 12, 35. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-023-00414-5

Gruszynski Sanseverino, G., & De Lima Santos, M. F. (2021). Experimenting with user-generated content in Journalistic practices: adopting a user-centric storytelling approach during the covid-19 pandemic coverage in Latin America. Brazilian Journalism Research, 17(2), 244–279. https://doi.org/10.25200/BJR.v17n2.2021.1369

Hamas Elmasry, M. (2024). Images of the Israel-Gaza War on Instagram: A Content Analysis of Western Broadcast News Posts. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990241287155

Hasan, M. (2024). Russia-Ukraine Propaganda on Social Media: A Bibliometric Analysis. Journalism and Media, 5(3), 980–992. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia5030062

Kerkhof, A., & Münster, J. (2019). Detecting coverage bias in user-generated content. Journal of Media Economics, 32(3–4), 99–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/08997764.2021.1903168

Kitsios, F., Mitsopoulou, E., Moustaka, E., & Kamariotou, M. (2022). User-Generated Content in Social Media: A Twenty-Year Bibliometric Analysis in Hospitality. Information, 13(12), 574. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13120574

Kubin, E., Merz, P., Wahba, M., Davis, C., Gray, K., & Von Sikorski, C. (2024). Understanding news-related user comments and their effects: A systematic review. Frontiers Media, 9. https://doi.org/10.17615/qc51-8m76

Kušen, E., & Strembeck, M. (2023). The Effects of Multiple Exposure to Highly Emotional Social Media Content During the Early Stages of the 2022 War in Ukraine. SN Computer Science, 4, 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-023-02080-w

Leszczuk, M., Kobosko, M., Nawała, J., Korus, F., & Grega, M. (2023). “In the Wild” Video Content as a Special Case of User Generated Content and a System for Its Recognition. Sensors, 23(4), 1769. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23041769

Liaropoulos, A. N. (2023). Victory and Virality: War in the Age of Social Media. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 24(2), 198–203. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/gia.2023.a913646

Lindgren, E., Lindholm, T., Vliegenthart, R., Boomgaarden, H. G., Damstra, A., Strömbäck, J., & Tsfati, Y. (2024). Trusting the Facts: The Role of Framing, News Media as a (Trusted) Source, and Opinion Resonance for Perceived Truth in Statistical Statements. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 101(4), 981–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221117117

Maathuis, C., & Kerkhof, I. (2023). The first two months in the war in Ukraine through topic modeling and sentiment analysis. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 15(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12632

Maschmeyer, L., Abrahams, A., Pomerantsev, P., & Yermolenko, V. (2023). Donetsk don’t tell – ‘hybrid war’ in Ukraine and the limits of social media influence operations. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 22(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2023.2211969

Masip, P., Ruiz-Caballero, C., & Suau, J. (2019). Active audiences and social discussion on the digital public sphere. Review article. Profesional De La información, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.mar.04

Marukhovskа-Kartunova, O., Marukhovskyi, O., Aleksandrova, M., Ivanova, I., & Lebedenko, N. (2023). Digital journalism and the role of social media in shaping public perception of Russian aggression in Ukraine. Amazonia Investiga, 12(69), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.69.09.12

Meral, K. Z. & Meral, Y. (2021). The role of social media in Arab Spring. e-Journal of New Media, 5(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.17932/IAU.EJNM.25480200.2021/ejnm_v5i1003

Miconi, A. (2020). News from the Levant: A Qualitative Research on the Role of Social Media in Syrian Diaspora. Social Media + Society, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119900337

Nah, S., Luo, J., Akçakır, G., Wu, X., Nam, G., & Kim, S. (2024). Revisiting citizen journalism scholarship in the Web Era (1994-2023): Past, present, and prospect. Journalism. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241247972

Okwilagwe, E. A., & Jinadu, A. T. (2023). Knowledge, Perception, Utilisation and Attitude Towards Social Media-Based Learning as Predictors of Students’ Academic Achievement in Geography. EIKI Journal of Effective Teaching Methods, 1(4). https://doi.org/10.59652/jetm.v1i4.66

Peña-Fernández, S., Larrondo-Ureta, A., & Agirreazkuenaga, I. (2024). Mediatised Participation: Citizen Journalism and the Decline in User-Generated Content in Online News Media. Social Sciences, 13(5), 266. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13050266

Popovic, M., & Kozar, S. (2023). Defining the concept of terrorism from the antropological perspective. Journal of Contemporary Philosophical and Anthropological Studies, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.59652/jcpas.v1i1.56

Salonen, M., Olbertz-Siitonen, M., Uskali, T., & Laaksonen, S. M. (2022). Conversational Gatekeeping—Social Interactional Practices of Post-Publication Gatekeeping on Newspapers’ Facebook Pages. Journalism Practice, 17(9), 2053–2077. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2022.2034520

Sang, V. M., Thanh, T. N. P., Gia, H. N., Nguyen Quoc, D., Long, K. L., & Yen, V. P. T. (2024). Impact of user-generated content in digital platforms on purchase intention: the mediator role of user emotion in the electronic product industry. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2414860. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2414860

Selvarajah, S., & Fiorito, L. (2023). Media, Public Opinion, and the ICC in the Russia-Ukraine War. Journalism and Media, 4(3), 760–789. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia4030048

Shahbazi, M., & Bunker, D. (2024). Social media trust: Fighting misinformation in the time of crisis. International Journal of Information Management, 77, 102780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2024.102780

Shahbaznezhad, H., Dolan, R., & Rashidirad, M. (2021). The Role of Social Media Content Format and Platform in Users’ Engagement Behavior. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 53(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2020.05.001

Stewart, E. (2021). Detecting Fake News: Two Problems for Content Moderation. Philosophy & Technology, 34, 923–940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00442-x

Sykora, M., Elayan, S., Hodgkinson, I. R., Jackson, T. W., & West, A. (2022). The power of emotions: Leveraging user generated content for customer experience management. Journal of Business Research, 144, 997–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.048

Truyens, P., & Picone, I. (2021). Audience Views on Professional Norms of Journalism. A Media Repertoire Approach. Journalism and Media, 2(2), 258–274. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia2020015

Yadav, J., Singh, K., Rana, N.P. and Dennehy, D. (2024). Social media as a behavior depolarizer: evidence from Russia-Ukraine conflict. Information Technology & People. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2022-0972

Yamamoto, M., Nah, S., & Choung, H. (2022). Consumption and Production of User-Generated Content, Credibility, and Political Participation. Communication Studies, 73(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2022.2026428

Yeh, E., & Swinehart, N. (2020). Social media literacy in L2 environments: navigating anonymous user-generated content. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(8), 1731–1753. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1830805

Zasiekin, S., Kuperman, V., Hlova, I., & Zasiekina, L. (2022). War stories in social media: Personal experience of Russia-Ukraine war. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 9(2), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.29038/eejpl.2022.9.2.zas

Zecchinon, P., & Standaert, O. (2024). The War in Ukraine Through the Prism of Visual Disinformation and the Limits of Specialized Fact-Checking. A Case-Study at Le Monde. Digital Journalism, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2024.2332609

Zhu, X., Lang, M., & Dietl, H. M. (2023). Content Quality Assurance on Media Platforms with User-Generated Content. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 18(3), 1660–1686. https://www.mdpi.com/0718-1876/18/3/84

This article presents no conflicts of interest. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Reproduction, distribution, and public communication of the work, as well as the creation of derivative works, are permitted provided that the original source is cited.