Digital witnesses to the crime: Visual representation of the Bucha massacre across social media platforms

Abstract

This article investigates the role of social media platforms in the visual representation of the Bucha massacre perpetrated by Russian forces during the aggression against Ukraine in 2022. By considering the interconnectedness of the online and offline spheres, the authors explore the impact of social media on the coverage of the massacre. The study focuses on a comprehensive analysis of 6,185 images disseminated on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram between 29 March and 15 September 2022. Through an analysis of the intricate dynamics between war crimes, visual representations and social media platforms, the article invites contemplation on how digital artifacts shape our collective understanding of historical atrocities.

Keywords

Bucha massacre digital methods graphic representation Russian invasion of Ukraine social media platforms visual analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

(2012) What was Web 2.0? Versions as the dominant mode of internet history. New Media & Society 15(2): 260–275.

Andreikovets

(2022) At least 458 Ukrainians died in the Bucha community as a result of the actions of the Russians. Babel.ua. Available at: https://babel.ua/en/news/82626-at-least-458-ukrainians-died-in-the-bucha-community-as-a-result-of-the-actions-of-the-russians. (accessed 5 April 2024).

Ben-David

Amram

Bekkerman

(2018) The colors of the national web: Visual data analysis of the historical Yugoslav web domain. International Journal on Digital Libraries 19(1): 95–106.

Blank

(2017) The digital divide among Twitter users and its implications for social research. Social Science Computer Review 35(6): 679–697.

Boichak

Jackson

(2020) From national identity to state legitimacy: Mobilizing digitally networked publics in eastern Ukraine. Media, War & Conflict 13(3): 258–279.

Bozzi

(2020) #digitalnomads, #solotravellers, #remote- workers: A cultural critique of the traveling entrepreneur on Instagram. Social Media and Society 6(2): 1–15.

Bruns

Burgess

(2015) Twitter hashtags from ad hoc to calculated publics. In: Rambukkana

(ed.) Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 13–27.

Bucher

Helmond

(2018) The affordances of social media platforms. In: Burgess

, et al. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Media. London: Sage, 233–253.

Chouliaraki

Stolic

(2017) Rethinking media responsibility in the refugee ‘crisis’: A visual topology of European news. Media, Culture & Society 39(8): 1162–1177.

10.

Ciuriak

(2022) The Role of Social Media in Russia’s War on Ukraine. Report, Ciurak Consulting. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4078863 (accessed 24 March 2023).

11.

Davidjants

Tiidenberg

(2022) Activist memory narration on social media: Armenian genocide on Instagram. New Media & Society 24(10): 2191–2206.

12.

DiResta

, et al. (2018) The Tactics & Tropes of the Internet Research Agency. Austin, TX: New Knowledge. Available at: https://disinformationreport.blob.core.windows.net/disinformation-report/NewKnowledge-Disinformation-Report-Whitepaper.pdf (accessed 31 March 2021).

13.

Garner

(2023) ‘We’ve got to kill them’: Responses to Bucha on Russia social media groups. Journal of Genocide Research 25(3/4): 418–425.

14.

Gerlitz

Rieder

(2013) Mining one percent of Twitter: Collections, baselines, sampling. M/C Journal 16(2). DOI: 10.5204/mcj.620.

15.

Gibbs

, et al. (2015) #Funeral and Instagram: Death, social media, and platform vernacular. Information, Communication & Society 18(3): 255–268.

16.

Griffin

(2004) Picturing America’s ‘War on Terrorism’in Afghanistan and Iraq: Photographic motifs as news frames. Journalism, 5(4), 381–402.

17.

Griffin

Lee

(1995) Picturing the Gulf War: Constructing an image of war in Time, Newsweek, and U.S News & World Report. J&MC Quarterly 72(4): 813–825.

18.

Hao

Rohrdantz

Janetzko

(2011) Visual sentiment analysis on Twitter data streams. In: IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST), Providence, RI, 277–278. New York, NY: IEEE.

19.

Hase

Boczek

Scharkow

(2023) Adapting to affordances and audiences? A cross-platform, multi-modal analysis of the platformization of news on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter. Digital Journalism 11(8): 1499–1520.

20.

Hochman

Manovich

Chow

(2013) Phototrails. Available at: http://phototrails.net/ (accessed 1 October 2018).

21.

Hoskins

O’Loughlin

(2010) War and Media: The Emergence of Diffused War. Cambridge: Polity Press.

22.

Hoskins

Shchelin

(2023) The war feed: Digital war in plain sight. American Behavioral Scientist 67(3): 449–463.

23.

Howard

, et al. (2018) The IRA, Social Media and Political Polarization in the United States, 2012–2018. Oxford: Computational Propaganda Research Project Oxford Internet Institute.

24.

Jamal

(2022) Meta says its automated content-tracking system briefly blocked Facebook and Instagram hashtags about the apparent massacre in Bucha, Ukraine. Business Insider, 5 April. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/metas-content-tracking-algo-briefly-blocked-bucha-hashtags-2022-4 (accessed 5 April 2024).

25.

Keller

(2001) The Ultimate Spectacle: A Visual History of the Crimean War. New York, NY: Routledge.

26.

Leloup

(2022) The difficulty of conserving social media evidence of war crimes. Le Monde.fr, 10 April. Available at: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2022/04/10/the-difficulty-of-conserving-social-media-evidence-of-war-crimes_5980187_13.html (accessed 5 April 2024).

27.

, et al. (2015) Assessing street-level urban greenery using Google street view and a modified green view index. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14(3): 675–685.

28.

Makhortykh

Bastian

(2022) Personalizing the war: Perspectives for the adoption of news recommendation algorithms in the media coverage of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Media, War & Conflict 15(1): 24–45.

29.

Makhortykh

Sydorova

(2017) Social media and the visual framing of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Media, War & Conflict 10(3): 359–381.

30.

Malik

(2022) Elon Musk’s Twitter is fast proving that free speech at all costs is a dangerous fantasy. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/28/elon-musk-twitter-free-speech-donald-trump-kanye-west (accessed 5 April 2024).

31.

Manovich

(2016) The science of culture? Social computing, digital humanities and cultural analytics. Journal of Cultural Analytics 1(1): 1–15.

32.

Marres

, et al. (2020) Corona testing on Twitter: Surfacing testing situations beyond the laboratory. Report, Digital Methods Initiative 2020. Available at: https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/SummerSchool2020COVIDTestingSituations (accessed 17 March 2022).

33.

Martikainen

Sakki

(2023) Visual humanization of refugees: A visual rhetorical analysis of media discourse on the war in Ukraine. British Journal of Social Psychology 63(1): 106–130.

34.

Mortensen

Trenz

(2016) Media morality and visual icons in the age of social media: Alan Kurdi and the emergence of an impromptu public of moral spectatorship. Javnost – The Public 23(4): 343–362.

35.

Niederer

(2018) Networked Images: Visual Methodologies for the Digital Age. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences.

36.

Niederer

Colombo

(2019) Visual methodologies for networked images: Designing visualizations for collaborative research, cross-platform analysis, and public participation. Diseña 14: 40–67.

37.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2022) Killings of Civilians: Summary Executions and Attack on Individual Civilians in Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Sumy Regions in the Context of the Russian Federation’s Armed Attack against Ukraine. Report. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-12-07-OHCHR-Thematic-Report-Killings-EN.pdf (accessed 17 March 2023).

38.

Shahin

Greeves

(2024) Platform affordances and spiral of silence: How perceived differences between Facebook and Twitter influence opinion expression online. Technology in Society 76: 102431.

39.

Öztat

Akyüz

(2023) The pornography of violence on social media: A reception analysis on user experiences in the case of the Ukraine–Russia War. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 52: 352–367.

40.

Pearce

, et al. (2018) Visual cross-platform analysis: Digital methods to research social media images. Information, Communication & Society 23(2): 161–180.

41.

Peeters

Hagen

(2022) The 4CAT capture and analysis toolkit: A modular tool for transparent and traceable social media research. Computational Communication Research 4(2): 571–589.

42.

Rabello

, et al. (2022) Mapping online visuals of shale gas controversy: A digital methods approach. Information, Communication & Society 25(15): 2264–2281.

43.

Ricci

, et al. (2017) Designing digital methods to monitor and inform urban policy: The case of Paris and its urban nature initiative. In: 3rd International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP3)-Panel T10P6 Session 1 Digital Methods for Public Policy. Available at: www.ippapublicpolicy.org//file/paper/593ecc1e0454f.pdf (accessed 5 April 2024).

44.

Rogers

(2019) Doing Digital Methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

45.

Rogers

(2021a) Visual media analysis for Instagram and other online platforms. Big Data & Society 8(1). DOI: 10.1177/20539517211022370.

46.

Rogers

(2021b) Marginalizing the mainstream: How social media privilege political information. Frontiers in Big Data 4: 689036.

47.

Rogers

Ben-David

(2010) Coming to terms: A conflict analysis of the usage, in official and unofficial sources, of ‘security fence’, ‘apartheid wall’, and other terms for the structure between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Media, War & Conflict 3(2): 202–229.

48.

Rogers

Sendijarevic

(2012) Neutral or national point of view? A comparison of Srebrenica articles across Wikipedia’s language versions. In: Wikipedia Academy: Research and Free Knowledge, Berlin, 29 June–1 July. Wikipedia Academy. Available at: http://wikipediaacademy.de/2012/w/images/8/89/3_Paper_Richard_Rogers_Emina_Sendijarevic.pdf (accessed 5 April 2024).

49.

Ronzhyn

Cardenal

Batlle Rubio

(2022) Defining affordances in social media research: A literature review. New Media & Society 25(11): 3165–3188.

50.

Schwalbe

(2013) Visually framing the invasion and occupation of Iraq in TIME, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report. International Journal of Communication 7: 239–262.

51.

Schwalbe

Dougherty

(2015) Visual coverage of the 2006 Lebanon War: Framing conflict in three US news magazines. Media, War & Conflict 8(1): 141–162.

52.

Sontag

(2003) Regarding the Pain of Others. New York, NY: Picador/Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

53.

Suciu

(2022) Is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine the first social media war? Forbes, 1 March. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2022/03/01/is-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-the-first-social-media-war/ (accessed 5 April 2024).

54.

Tschirky

Makhortykh

(2023) #Azovsteel: Comparing qualitative and quantitative approaches for studying framing of the siege of Mariupol on Twitter. Media, War & Conflict. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17506352231184163.

55.

Zelizer

(2010) About to Die: How News Images Move the Public. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.