The echoes of war still linger in Ukraine, long after the immediate headlines have faded. For journalists who've reported from the front line, the experience often leaves an indelible mark – one that's as much about emotional scars as it is about factual reporting. One such seasoned reporter, who has traversed the conflict-ridden region since 2022, acknowledges that while objective details are crucial, they don't always convey the full weight of witnessing war.
Yet, feelings and impressions inevitably seep into the narrative, playing a vital 'epistemic role' in understanding people and situations. Even in relative safety zones like Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa, and Mykolaiv, the constant threat and impact of conflict are omnipresent – as evidenced by incidents such as a woman killed by shrapnel in Odesa or a drone strike on Kyiv's Pechersk Lavra.
When asked to reflect on their experience, journalists often struggle to articulate more than the 'facts' they've recorded. This raises questions about what stories are told and why – whether they're intended for public consumption or kept private as memories that resurface years later. The phenomenon isn't unique to Ukraine's current conflict; another journalist recalls covering the Balkans in the 1990s, where their most enduring memories were 'cinematic images' – rather than facts or quotes.
These haunting images, forged from experience and emotion, reveal a more profound truth about reporting on war. They are an attempt to answer the question: what was it truly like? For this reporter, such reflections now evoke a dense layering of incompatible experiences – a 'stratification' where disparate elements coexist uncomfortably. It's in these points of friction that the essence of the experience might be found, not just in narratives about destruction, but also in images of resilience and hope amidst the ruins.