War and Conflict
The development of fake images and videos is increasingly becoming a problem in conflict situations. Since the 1850s, photography has changed people’s perceptions of war and conflict by depicting the harsh realities faced by average soldiers and civilians. Since then, we’ve regarded photographs and videos as factual, trustworthy evidence, especially for documenting human conflict and humanitarian work.
To a certain extent, the idea that photography and videos depict truth has always been an illusion. As soon as photography was invented, so was doctoring or staging photographs. However, the ability to create fake images was reserved for people with specific skills and knowledge. Now, anyone with internet access can create a fake image and spread it online within minutes. Already, misleading AI depictions of war zones are being created.
Images have a deep impact on how we perceive truth. Humanitarians have relied heavily on powerful images to communicate the necessity of their work and draw attention to human suffering. Conflict is inherently chaotic and secretive, and conveying the on-the-ground reality to those not experiencing it is difficult. Images, however, have proven useful in demonstrating the reality of conflict. There is a real risk that fake images can mislead people about the events taking place during conflicts and can reduce the power of visual media to change hearts and minds.
More tangibly, fake images or false reports about a conflict can make it more difficult for humanitarians to hold people accountable for breaking international humanitarian law (IHL). When an explosion killed hundreds of people at the Al Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza in October 2023, a storm of fake images, misleading videos, and unsubstantiated claims took over social media, making it very difficult for experts to understand who was accountable for attacking the hospital (a protected building under IHL). As a senior researcher at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, John Scott-Railton explained, such a large volume of false information is a “uniquely unhelpful” environment for truth and accountability. Indeed, propaganda has played a huge role in conflicts. An environment where nothing can be trusted allows both sides to denounce all reporting and evidence of human rights abuses as “fake.” This is most evident in the campaign to discredit journalists in Gaza, which is being used to justify killing them.
This compounds an alarming trend of weakening IHL and the values on which humanitarianism is founded. Erica Harper, head of research and policy studies at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, explains that “International humanitarian law stands at a crossroads… violations that were once considered shocking exceptions have become persistent, widespread, and too often tolerated.”
In March 2025, 15 paramedics and first responders, including eight Palestinian Red Crescent paramedics, were killed by the Israeli military. After the attack, the Israeli military said that the incident was a result of “professional failures,” with the troops opening fire “on what they believed to be a ‘tangible threat’ amid what the military called an ‘operational misunderstanding,’” according to CNN. Similar claims have been made about hospitals being used to hide combatants in both the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. This doesn’t just harm humanitarians; it harms civilians. This narrative suggests that any civilian building used as shelter is now fair game for attack.
Another aspect harming humanitarian work in these situations is the lack of trust in these organizations. To be truly effective, nonprofits and international agencies need to build and maintain trust in communities. A 2025 Washington Post article pointed to a situation where a mother of three in South Sudan refused to take airdropped food supplies that bore the flag of the country that had bombarded her village.
Refugees and Asylum Seekers
Misunderstandings about the rights and circumstances of people who seek asylum in other countries have long been an issue for humanitarian organizations. Although a 2024 Ipsos survey showed that global attitudes toward people seeking sanctuary remained broadly positive, sentiment was less positive in Western nations. In general, people confuse refugees (people fleeing persecution or danger) and migrants (people moving to a new country for familial or economic reasons). This environment of uncertainty is a breeding ground for propaganda. “Migration is an ideal topic for those pushing lies and half-truths to spread confusion, fear, anger, or prejudice. It is a complex phenomenon where the facts can be difficult to ascertain or explain,” wrote Alberto-Horst Neidhardt and Paul Butcher for the Migration Policy Institute.
This becomes particularly problematic when this topic is prominently featured in public discourse and contains factually incorrect information. In 2024, a year of elections internationally, migration was a key issue for voters. For a long time now, migration has been blamed for a decline in standards of living in the West, fueled by continuous propaganda. People seeking asylum (or migrants more generally) are often wrongly targeted for causing housing scarcity, overwhelming the health care system, and taking away jobs from citizens, despite evidence to the contrary.
People tend to overestimate the number of immigrants in their country. There are persistent claims in the UK, Canada, and other countries that asylum seekers or migrants receive substantial assistance from the government upon arrival, despite this not being true. During the 2024 U.S. election, stereotypical claims that Haitian migrants in Ohio were eating people’s pets became a key point of debate. Politicians increasingly focus on attacking migrants and use terminology like “illegal aliens” to dehumanize people and stoke further confusion about their right to be in the country.
“From Afghanistan to Ukraine and beyond, each development concerning global migrant flows or the management of cultural diversity can give rise to a new stream of disinformation, with significant consequences for policymaking, public discourse, and social relations. Conspiracy theories are also frequently used as a rhetorical tool by far-right movements and nativist politicians to advocate for hardline anti-immigration policies and mobilize their voters,” explain Horst Neidhardt and Butcher.
False claims about immigrants influence how people vote and encourage people to support politicians who offer “solutions.” For example, according to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees report, there is clear evidence that “offering safe and legal routes can help to reduce irregular migration and limit loss of life,” by reducing the number of people crossing the English Channel by boat. The British government has, however, chosen a hardline approach to this social issue. Channel crossings result in people’s deaths, but politicians are more interested in appeasing voters, whose opinions are largely influenced by harmful information, than in offering genuine solutions.
Humanitarian schemes to provide support for refugees and asylum seekers are failing thanks to false information. These campaigns focus our attention on attacking “the other” rather than on addressing chronic societal issues. They create hostility in diverse communities and threaten people’s rights to seek safety during dangerous situations.
“Humanitarian organizations have struggled with how best to protect refugees and other vulnerable people from the harms caused by hate speech and false information,” states the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The organization found that the escalation of violence against the Rohingya in Myanmar resulted from social media platforms spreading disinformation and hate speech against them. Situations like this lead to questioning of “vital protection information” that humanitarians are required to share during such a crisis.
Failure by humanitarian organizations to meet migrants’ needs is also eroding the trust people place in them. “[T]he vast humanitarian needs of migrants in vulnerable situations are, for a variety of reasons, often not being fully met. These migrants also often have only a fragile trust in humanitarian organizations. … When organizations do not remain independent or are not perceived as such, this jeopardizes their ability to serve migrants in need. Protecting individuals’ data, avoiding involvement with governments’ implementation of immigration policies, and carefully considering whether to support activities such as returns has immediate implications for real or perceived independence and affects migrants’ trust,” stated a Migration Policy Institute 2023 article.
Potential Solutions to the Misinformation Problem
The UNICEF “Vaccine Misinformation Management Field Guide” starts by emphasizing that staff shouldn’t be distracted by the falsehoods. It tells humanitarians on the ground to be aware that people are understandably distressed in times of crisis and encourages them to listen to and address genuine concerns. As the American Psychological Association explains, people are more likely to believe misinformation when they are anxious since they appeal to emotions like fear and anger. They are looking for confirmation of what they already believe; they are putting their trust in the idea that comforts them, which tells them they were right all along. This gets to the crux of solving the problem of propaganda: trust.
If the post-truth era reflects a shift in people’s understanding of whom or what to trust, it should also reflect a shift in how we earn people’s trust. Former president of the International Federation of the Red Cross, Francesco Rocca, puts it succinctly when he said, “When people don’t trust us, then our ability to help them—to do what we are supposed to do—is eroded.”
If people trust a person or an organization, they are more likely to listen to what they have to say versus the random information they read online. Only through building strong levels of trust can we encourage people to question their own beliefs and accept alternative viewpoints. Humanitarian organizations need to understand that they cannot expect trust; they have to earn it. We have seen how people are easily won over by words and images, even false ones. However, trust can also be easily lost when not accompanied by action.
Humanitarians should demonstrate solutions to people’s problems and take action on their concerns. They should work harder to tackle poverty and inequality. Research has suggested that low GDP levels correlate with a lack of trust. Every community has its own issues. Communities struggling to access basic amenities and consistently let down by government institutions are less likely to trust others.
Humanitarian organizations also have to ask who should build this trust and deliver the information to communities. The international aid model or humanitarian system reflects a “colonial mindset,” says Kennedy Odede, head of Shining Hope for Communities that works in Kenyan slums, and ignores the “cultural knowledge” of grassroots organizations. “They believe they can just walk into a community and they’ll solve the problem if they have enough money, but that’s not how you create change.”
Evidence shows that people are more likely to trust members of their own in-groups. Efforts to build trust and tackle false information should therefore come from within the community. More responsibility and influence should be given to grassroots leaders and groups to build trust, challenge misconceptions, deliver services, and communicate accurate information within communities.
“Understanding where and how communities obtain their information will help… [humanitarians] identify who they trust and the main channels they use to communicate,” states Frontline Negotiations. This can help an individual or an organization develop a plan to counter propaganda before it becomes widespread.
Once trust is built, a clear strategy is required to ensure that effective communication addresses false information and challenges the bias and preconceived beliefs. Studies have suggested that using a storytelling approach to present facts makes the information easier to digest and understand.
These tactics respond to false information, but is there a way to reduce it? The United Nations suggests that states promote free and independent media rather than introducing curbs to reduce the spread of misinformation.
“Some States have carried out digital and media literacy programs to enable more resilient and meaningful participation online. Such initiatives serve to promote critical thinking skills that empower people to identify, dispel and debunk disinformation. States should also invest in tools and mechanisms that support independent fact-checking with the participation of journalists and civil society,” the organization adds.
We also have to do more to hold people accountable for the harm their decision-making inflicts, whether those are politicians and military generals who intentionally use false information to manipulate, or tech companies that allow false and harmful content to proliferate in society.
While there is no definitive way to ensure that all information in the world is honest and true, humanitarians can do their bit by building trust within communities and responding to people’s concerns to help counter propaganda and mitigate harm. This should be a top priority for humanitarian organizations, as it falls within their remit to preserve human life.
The ICRC has pointed to three ways in which humanitarian organizations can combat misinformation: During a conflict, protecting those most affected by the misinformation should be the top priority. Secondly, the “resilience and agency” of the people and community should be strengthened. Thirdly, humanitarian organizations should ensure “principled humanitarian action in the digital age” both offline and online.
Combating false information requires coordinated efforts at all levels. At the global level, as rising conflicts make humanitarian work more important, what is needed is a collaboration platform rooted within the humanitarian architecture to help frame a common agenda. This could include developing a joint advocacy position on online platforms, increasing collaboration, and pooling resources wherever necessary.
This article was edited for length. This is the second piece in a two-part series. This article was produced for the Observatory by the Independent Media Institute. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
