Media Fogging on Military Operations: A Double-Edged Sword

In modern conflict, wars are not just fought on the battlefronts but also in the realm of public opinion. Fogging of media is the deliberate or inadvertent manipulation of military action brought about by ambiguous, partisan, or propagandistic media reporting.

Illustration by The Geostrata

In the era of instant information, this fog—produced by state and non-state actors, media organisations, and social media—sets the context of perception, understanding, and judgment of wars. It influences strategic results, public opinion, and even the moral acceptability of war.

HISTORY OF MEDIA FOGGING 

The media-military relationship has changed considerably over the years. Governments during World War II censored the media tightly, managing public morale and operational security. The turning point came during the Vietnam War; open media coverage showed the ugly face of war, and the public was outraged. 

In the modern, hyperconnected world, war no longer exists only on the battlefield. Instead, it occurs within the battlefield of public opinion, enabled by the increasingly expansive network of media outlets, websites, and social media sites. With war now becoming more information-based, a phenomenon known as media fogging has emerged as a vital part of war reporting.

It refers to the voluntary or accidental exaggeration of military occurrences through selective, ambiguous, or manipulative reporting. Previously on the fringes, media fogging is now a leading force in determining how wars are fought, perceived, and overture.

In its essence, media fogging is the obscuring of facts of operation during armed conflicts. It can be done by selective reporting, withholding of vital facts, reporting of lies or misleading tales, and sensationalism. The result is that the narrative of military engagements is confused, rendering fact, propaganda, and perception indistinct. In some cases, media fogging is state or militarily driven; in others, it is driven by commercial considerations, prejudice, or constraints in journalistic institutions.

Regardless of its source, its consequences are extensive: it shapes the perception of the public, influences policy-making, and changes the morale of both civilians and soldiers.

MEDIA FOGGING DURING WORLD WAR ERA

Historically, the role of the media in war has always been controversial. During World War II, coverage was strictly controlled, with censorship employed to preserve national morale and safeguard operational secrecy.

Embedded journalists were controlled by the military, and therefore only sanitized reports were being presented to the public. This model was dramatically altered during the Vietnam War, when unrestricted access for the media enabled raw and uncensored reporting.

Unfiltered images of battle, civilian casualties, and strategic defeat were shown nightly on television screens, contributing to the increasingly popular anti-war movement in the United States.” During the Vietnam War, the military's failure to control the message was a turning point and a valuable lesson for future 

wars.”

It was succeeded, in turn, by a new era of control of information. Pools of reporters were organised and escorted by soldiers, and press conferences were closely scripted. The photos released stressed technological precision—missiles hitting targets with surgical precision—while civilian casualties and strategic errors were kept quietly out of sight.

Not only did this closely controlled message aid in maintaining public support, but it also ushered in a new form of media fogging; one that showed war to be clean, efficient, and virtually bloodless. It was a far cry from the chaotic and morally grey presentations of earlier decades.

The 21st CENTURY MEDIA FOGGING

As wars evolved in the 21st century—most notably in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Ukraine—the battlefield of information warfare became increasingly complicated. It was no longer confined to traditional media; social media platforms such as Twitter (X), YouTube, and Telegram enabled civilians, soldiers, and governments to broadcast video in real time.

This democratisation of reporting offered valuable insights from the battlefield but simultaneously introduced new issues. Firsthand testimony, photoshopped videos, and algorithmically boosted content contributed to a cacophonous information environment. Multiple versions of the same event could coexist simultaneously, each constructed to convey different ideological or strategic messages.

Governments and militaries have reacted by creating complex media strategies of their own. Official channels now broadcast live reporting, edited vignettes, and emotive images to construct public narratives. Press briefings often prioritise message discipline over openness, and selective disclosure is used to manage domestic and international opinion.

While these strategies might advance legitimate security interests—such as protecting ongoing operations or maintaining troop morale—these strategies also support a lack of openness about the nature of war. In other cases, these strategies are used to justify controversial actions or cover up the human costs of war.

ROLE OF NON-STATE ACTORS IN MEDIA FOGGING

Non-state actors have become increasingly adept at media fogging. Insurgents, militias, and terrorist organisations now have media propaganda units, publishing sensationalised images intended to intimidate enemies, rally followers, and elicit international reactions.

Some have even started to employ deepfake technology—artificially produced videos that show nonexistent events or quotations—to shape the minds of people and cause confusion. All these are a change in the art of military tactics: control of the narrative is becoming as significant as control of terrain.

The implications of media fogging are far-reaching. To the public, it creates confusion and distrust. Public opinion is splintered by echo chambers and emotional content instead of verified facts. To policymakers, media fogging makes decision-making more difficult. Without a clear idea of events, strategic decisions may be made on incomplete or false information. To troops and field commanders, it creates psychological tension, as media coverage may affect tactical decisions and morale.

Perhaps most of all, media fogging threatens democratic accountability. Where civilian control over the armed forces is the basis of societies, the ability of the people to hold governments accountable for war-making is largely dependent on access to reliable information.

When the media is an arm of the state or subject to propaganda, the role of the people in influencing national security policy is undermined. Under those conditions, wars will likely be fought in secret—on the basis of manufactured narratives and not informed consent.

However , transparency is not the only solution. Total transparency during military operations can endanger lives, compromise strategic operations, and offer enemies valuable intelligence. Thus, the challenge is to strike a balance—securing operational security without compromising the public's right to accurate and wide coverage.

This needs to be a collaborative endeavor by various institutions: journalists must uphold high standards of verification and objectivity; governments must uphold the right of the public to information; and the public must acquire critical literacy to judge sources and challenge narratives. In the age of artificial intelligence, deep fakes, and information warfare, media fogging only becomes more sophisticated.

As military and media technology continue to evolve, the tools used to control perception will follow suit. The battlefield is not geographic anymore; it is psychological and digital as well. Winning a war now more often than not means achieving control over the narrative. Short of that, media fogging is not just a byproduct of war but a constitutive aspect of the behavior of and popular perception regarding modern war.

Lifting such a fog requires watchfulness, moral fibre, and institutional responsibility. Only then will societies be able to make informed choices on the most serious of national activities: the decision to go to war.

We now live in an information-driven world. In this era, media fogging has become an inherent part of contemporary warfare. No longer restricted to the battlefield, wars are now waged across news channels, social media platforms, and digital feeds, where perception frequently trumps reality.

The military, governments, and even non-state actors intimately understand that to win a war—to crush the enemy, make it quail and tremble, and come to terms with it—you must first and foremost win the information contest. And how do you do that? By controlling and perfectly tailoring the media. For some time now in this increasingly dangerous world, we have also been under siege by the blizzard of lies. Winning the information contest also means rolling in the deep.

---

BY KS AARYA

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com