Humanitarian Crisis Coverage Report
Tallinn; London: Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) (2025), 38 pp.
"The central research question — to what extent media representation aligns with crisis severity — underpins an analysis of 78,667 news articles spanning 10 of the world's most urgent humanitarian crises, from Sudan and Ethiopia to Ukraine and Gaza. Drawing from English-language media in eight countries, the study is based mostly on Western sources and three non-Western outlets to offer a cross-sectional view of editorial priorities in the Anglophone information ecosystem.
Key findings demonstrate that global humanitarian coverage is highly uneven. Crises in Gaza and Ukraine dominate international media attention, averaging 58.5 and 19.4 articles per day, respectively. Conversely, some of the world’s most devastating, yet protracted crises—including those in Chad (0.06 articles/day) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (1.5 articles/day)—receive little sustained attention. This disproportionate focus does not correlate with humanitarian severity or affected populations. For example, the DRC, where over 21 million people need aid, garners a fraction of the visibility of Gaza, which affects 3.3 million people.
These disparities are symptomatic of a broader hierarchy in global journalism. Crises with geopolitical resonance—such as those involving Western allies or adversaries—are amplified, while those centered in the Global South are often sidelined. The study identifies longstanding logics of newsworthiness at play, prioritizing conflict proximity, elite involvement, dramatic visuals, and ideological utility over humanitarian need. Event-driven spikes further distort coverage. Media interest surges during acute developments—such as the Taliban’s return in Afghanistan—but quickly subsides, perpetuating a feeling of “media fatigue.” This inconsistency undermines humanitarian advocacy that depends on sustained public and political engagement.
The framing analysis of the Gaza and Ukraine crises conducted as part of this project reveals that the humanitarian lens is the most dominant across media coverage. Articles prioritize imagery of suffering civilians, refugee stories, and basic needs, registering higher average mentions (0.316 per article) than military (0.281) or geopolitical (0.267) frames. However, while framed empathetically, these narratives risk oversimplifying multidimensional conflicts and depoliticizing structural injustices." (Executive summary)
Key findings demonstrate that global humanitarian coverage is highly uneven. Crises in Gaza and Ukraine dominate international media attention, averaging 58.5 and 19.4 articles per day, respectively. Conversely, some of the world’s most devastating, yet protracted crises—including those in Chad (0.06 articles/day) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (1.5 articles/day)—receive little sustained attention. This disproportionate focus does not correlate with humanitarian severity or affected populations. For example, the DRC, where over 21 million people need aid, garners a fraction of the visibility of Gaza, which affects 3.3 million people.
These disparities are symptomatic of a broader hierarchy in global journalism. Crises with geopolitical resonance—such as those involving Western allies or adversaries—are amplified, while those centered in the Global South are often sidelined. The study identifies longstanding logics of newsworthiness at play, prioritizing conflict proximity, elite involvement, dramatic visuals, and ideological utility over humanitarian need. Event-driven spikes further distort coverage. Media interest surges during acute developments—such as the Taliban’s return in Afghanistan—but quickly subsides, perpetuating a feeling of “media fatigue.” This inconsistency undermines humanitarian advocacy that depends on sustained public and political engagement.
The framing analysis of the Gaza and Ukraine crises conducted as part of this project reveals that the humanitarian lens is the most dominant across media coverage. Articles prioritize imagery of suffering civilians, refugee stories, and basic needs, registering higher average mentions (0.316 per article) than military (0.281) or geopolitical (0.267) frames. However, while framed empathetically, these narratives risk oversimplifying multidimensional conflicts and depoliticizing structural injustices." (Executive summary)
"A total of 10 humanitarian crises were selected by overall impact, such as the number of people requiring humanitarian aid, as follows: Sudan, Syria, Gaza, Ukraine, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Afghanistan, Yemen, Ethiopia, Myanmar and Chad. To determine this, we used the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) 2025 Global Humanitarian Overview
(United Nations OCHA, 2025). This study focuses on English-language media outlets from five key countries—the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Ireland—chosen for their outsized role in shaping global information flows and their relevance in international reporting on humanitarian crises. These countries were selected based on linguistic accessibility, regional diversity, and their media systems’ influence in the Anglophone world. To complement this core country selection and ensure a broader geopolitical and editorial representation, the study also included three internationally prominent outlets that are not headquartered in these five countries but are frequently cited in global or region-focused crisis coverage and widely indexed in digital platforms: RT (Russia Today), a Russian state-funded outlet known for its alternative framing of Western narratives; Al Jazeera English, based in Qatar and widely recognized for its focus on the Global South and underreported regions; IRNA (Islamic Republic News Agency), the official state news agency of Iran, offering a perspective aligned with Iranian state policy." (Methodology, pages 4-5)
(United Nations OCHA, 2025). This study focuses on English-language media outlets from five key countries—the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Ireland—chosen for their outsized role in shaping global information flows and their relevance in international reporting on humanitarian crises. These countries were selected based on linguistic accessibility, regional diversity, and their media systems’ influence in the Anglophone world. To complement this core country selection and ensure a broader geopolitical and editorial representation, the study also included three internationally prominent outlets that are not headquartered in these five countries but are frequently cited in global or region-focused crisis coverage and widely indexed in digital platforms: RT (Russia Today), a Russian state-funded outlet known for its alternative framing of Western narratives; Al Jazeera English, based in Qatar and widely recognized for its focus on the Global South and underreported regions; IRNA (Islamic Republic News Agency), the official state news agency of Iran, offering a perspective aligned with Iranian state policy." (Methodology, pages 4-5)
