Ashok Ogra
ashokogra@gmail.com
Today, a meme can travel faster than a missile-and sometimes leave a stronger impression. During the recent Iran-US conflict, a short clip spread widely on Instagram and X. It showed a cartoon-style version of Donald Trump pressing buttons that caused big, exaggerated explosions, while an Iranian figure appeared calm.
Similarly, posts that joke about the Strait of Hormuz with Iranian diplomatic accounts saying they had “lost the keys” to the strait, as if it were a locked gate.
The United States also uses social media, often through stylised videos and popular culture references, mainly aimed at its own domestic audience. In one controversial case, official US content mixed real strike footage with clips from video games and films, presenting war almost like entertainment. This showed how even formal communication has begun adopting the language of social media to reach wider audiences.
The difference in approach, however, is clear. Iran tries to reach a global audience, while the US focusses more on its domestic constituency. Still, both understand that how a story is told is as important as the events themselves.
Across all these examples, some common patterns can be seen. Content that is short, simple and easy to understand gains public acceptance more easily.
However, what looks like simple online content is often part of a larger effort to influence public opinion. Governments and people use social media to present their side of a conflict. Memes, short videos and edited visuals are made to attract attention and encourage sharing. Social media have become a space where ideas about a war are created and debated. In essence, war is no longer only fought on the ground.
This development is relatively recent, coinciding with the rapid growth and deeper penetration of social media platforms.
Take the case of the Ukraine war: the country uses platforms like X, Telegram and Instagram to share updates, videos and messages asking for global support. The “Saint Javelin” image has become one of the most powerful symbols of the war. It shows a saint-like figure in the style of a traditional religious icon, but instead of holding a child, she holds an anti-tank weapon. This unusual mix of faith and modern warfare made it visually striking and easy to remember. It spread rapidly online, boosted morale, and even raised over a million dollars for humanitarian aid-showing how a meme can move from symbolism to real-world impact.
Similarly, the “Ghost of Kyiv,” – a viral story about a heroic Ukrainian pilot who allegedly shot down several Russian aircraft in a single day. Though later acknowledged as a myth, it played a powerful role in the early days of the war.
Russia, on the other hand, uses social media in a more controlled way, focusing on its own explanation of the conflict. They use more controlled messaging. Symbols like the “Z” sign became widely visible. Influencers and online personalities amplify pro-war messaging, sometimes under pressure or guidance, creating a digital environment of patriotism and support while limiting dissent.
Both sides-Russia and Ukraine-have seen viral posts that later turned out to be misleading or false. Claims about war crimes, battlefield victories, or leadership actions spread rapidly online, often before verification. Unfortunately, such content influences how people think, rather than giving full details.
New technologies have added another layer. Edited or AI-created visuals can make events look more dramatic or different from reality. For instance, Iran has increasingly used cartoon-style and AI-generated videos on social media to depict the US as confused or weak.
This does not mean everything is false, but it does make it harder to clearly tell what is real and what is changed. While social media have become a major source of information, they also raise questions about accuracy. Because of this, most well-informed people often check more than one source before forming an opinion.
This is why newspapers and established media still matter- though their influence has dramatically diminished in recent years. It continues to provide more complete reporting and context, and present a fuller picture. However, their coverage differs across countries and regions.
Take the case of the Iran conflict. In the United States, newspapers like The Washington Post and The New York Times, when covering the Iran conflict focus on security, policy and risks. In the United Kingdom, The London-based Guardian gives more attention to humanitarian issues and civilian impact.
In Iran, newspapers such as The Tehran Times present a national viewpoint, focusing on unity and response. In the Gulf region, papers like Gulf Times and Khaleej Times focus on stability, oil markets and the risk of conflict spreading.
Indian newspapers such as Daily Excelsior, The Hindu, The Indian Express and The Times of India take a practical approach. They look at oil prices, the safety of Indian citizens and the global impact. They usually call for calm and dialogue.
The fact remains that today, traditional media and social media are closely connected. Viral posts can influence what news organisations cover, while detailed reporting helps people understand what they see online. In short, there is no single way to understand a conflict.
The main point is simple. War today is not only about what happens on the battlefield. It is also about how those events are shown and understood. In this situation, public opinion is not separate from the conflict-it is part of it.
So, the challenge today is not only to follow the war, but also to understand how it is being shown. Remember, in today’s conflicts, what travels fastest is not always the truth, but the story-and often, that story shapes reality as much as the battlefield itself.
(The author works for reputed Apeejay Education, New Delhi)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
