Opinion | The weaponization of ‘conflict-sensitive reporting’ against South Sudan’s truth

OPINION — There is a growing call by media personalities in South Sudan for journalists to embrace what they call “conflict-sensitive reporting.” Trainings are being organized, workshops are being held, and reporters are being urged to change how they tell the story of the unfolding conflict in order to avoid worsening tensions.

On the surface, this appears responsible and wise. In reality, it is becoming a dangerous weapon — not against conflict, but against truth, justice, and the suffering of ordinary South Sudanese.

Conflict-sensitive reporting, properly practiced, does have a role. It calls for journalists in conflict zones to be aware of how their reporting can impact fragile situations. It encourages reporters to consider whether they are unintentionally portraying one side as heroes and the other side as villains, whether their words could fuel hatred, revenge, or new violence. In this sense, conflict-sensitive reporting done right is about avoiding propaganda, hate speech, and reckless incitement.

But conflict-sensitive reporting done wrong becomes a tool for self-censorship and impunity. It becomes a silent collaborator in covering up atrocities, especially in a country like South Sudan where powerful actors already dominate and manipulate narratives. What is unfolding now is not responsible journalism — it is the quiet burying of truth under the false excuse of promoting peace.

South Sudan has become a masterclass in how the abuse of conflict-sensitive reporting sweeps real crimes under the rug. Journalists are being encouraged to water down reports of mass killings and war crimes because they fear honest coverage might “worsen tensions.” Instead of calling out human rights abuses clearly, language is softened; massacres are described as “clashes,” and state-sponsored terror is reduced to “inter-communal violence.”

Victims and perpetrators are being portrayed as morally equal, even when one side clearly wields overwhelming power and commits atrocities without consequence. Survivors and whistleblowers are being muted, not because their stories are untrue, but because telling them might “provoke anger.” Political elites are benefiting, finding comfort in a media environment that now thinks twice before naming and shaming those who commit violence. Justice is postponed, hidden behind the excuse of “waiting for peace,” in a country where peace talks have been used time and again to delay real accountability.

A fresh and painful example unfolded just this month in Malakal. Nuer civilians, already displaced and vulnerable, were attacked and killed in coordinated violence. Yet, some of the most powerful media organizations in South Sudan — organizations that claim to champion independent journalism — chose silence. Under the excuse of being “sensitive to the situation,” they failed to report on the killings. They failed to name the victims. They failed to ask who was responsible. In doing so, they failed the very people journalism is supposed to defend.

Meanwhile, inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric from political leaders continues unchecked. Last month, Uganda’s Chief of Defense Forces, Muhoozi Kainerugaba — the son of President Yoweri Museveni — publicly stated on X (formerly Twitter) that he was “tired of killing” the Nuer community. In South Sudan, Cabinet Affairs Minister Martin Elia Lomuro labeled several Nuer counties as “hostile” to the government during a public speech this Saturday.

Weeks earlier, Information Minister Michael Makuei Lueth openly threatened civilians in Nasir, stating that those who refused to leave would be considered “negative forces” and dealt with by “necessary force.” Shortly after these reckless statements, government forces, backed by Uganda’s air power, attacked civilians in Nasir.

If so-called “conflict-sensitive reporting” demands that we ignore these incitements, refuse to expose these crimes, and shield the guilty from public scrutiny, then it is no longer journalism at all. It is complicity.

Journalism must be sensitive to conflict, yes. But it must never be sensitive at the cost of truth. It must never silence victims to protect the powerful. It must never delay justice for the sake of political comfort.

What is being promoted today under the banner of conflict-sensitive reporting is not about peace. It is about fear. It is about control. And it is about preserving the position of those who benefit from silence while the people suffer.

If journalists in South Sudan allow themselves to be softened, muted, or censored in the name of sensitivity, they will have abandoned the very foundation of their profession. We will not be building peace. We will be digging graves for the truth.

South Sudan deserves real peace, but peace without truth is nothing but a lie.

It is time for journalists to remember their duty: to hold the powerful accountable, to defend the defenseless, and to report the truth without fear, without favor, and without apology.

Only through truth can real peace ever come.

Tor Madira Machier is a journalist and Editor-in-Chief of Sudans Post. The views expressed here are solely his views and do not represent Sudans Post. He can be reached via tormadira2013@gmail.com.

---

The views expressed in the ‘OPINIONS & ANALYSIS’ section of Sudans Post are solely the opinions of the writers. The veracity of any claims made are the responsibility of the author not this website. If you want to submit an opinion piece or an analysis please email us here.