"We are hurting our heroes": a photojournalist about the dark side of the profession during the war

The work of photojournalists in wartime is both difficult and important. Capturing the destruction and evacuations is caused by human vulnerability, which should be shown to the world. We talked about this with Serhiy Korovainyi , a documentary photojournalist who works for many international publications, mostly for The Wall Street Journal. Watch the full interview on Intent and read the shortened version about the need to surprise with war, Donetsk before 2014, empathy and the country's maturation.

With the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, foreign media started coming to Ukraine. Is there a difference between a Ukrainian photojournalist working in a war zone and a foreigner visiting?

First of all, foreign media have been working here in such waves since 2014. Of course, the Maidan was a big wave. The first months of the war in the East, the annexation of Crimea, and then there was a lull. It was quite long. It was then that I started to be a photojournalist... I tried to enter the profession in full from 2016-2017. It was hard because there really aren't many opportunities to work with foreign media. In 2022, it was a boom.

The peculiarity of our war is that it is the largest continental war in the center of Europe, but you can come here by train. A lot of big media and novice correspondents came here. But, of course, different people worked differently. Foreigners are also very different. We can divide them into those who had already worked before 2022 and knew the context, or those who wanted to understand, and they are great. And many of them are still working today, very well, covering stories with nuances in great depth, and I thank them for that. But, of course, there were those who came, filmed for two weeks, went to Dnipro, went to Irpin for evacuation, and published an article or a book called My War in Ukraine. And it's funny, because it's very superficial. And in this respect, I think Ukrainian journalists and photographers both then, at the beginning of the war, and now, work with much deeper and more interesting topics. Simply because they are Ukrainians, they work for Ukrainians, about Ukrainians, and there is much more context taken into account by default that foreigners can simply miss. That's why these are often one-person stories. There are a lot of personal stories, stories about the military at the front, which, unfortunately, foreign media may not be interested in because they are looking for the bigger picture and some trends, some strategic, geopolitical topics. Of course, there are different works in general, but in general, Ukrainians work with more nuance, more depth. But good foreigners often work more professionally.

There is a lot going on in the world besides the war in Ukraine. And the demand, I won't say that it has disappeared in foreign media, but it seems to me that it is different. What is the demand for war coverage abroad now?

I would say that at first it was any topic that could be found here. I work with major American and European newspapers - media, mainly the Wall Street Journal. I know more or less the big media that are popular and well-known, but I can't speak for all foreigners. If in the beginning it was really anything they could find, any visit to the front, any personal story or those who were in captivity. There were a lot of civilians in captivity, for example, in the spring of 2022-these were very difficult stories, and everyone was looking for them. Anything from Ukraine caused a great resonance and had a great success.

Unfortunately, reality is measured by clicks and views.

The views of stories from Ukraine simply broke all records. This is natural. Our problem is one of many, because this war is very long. Everyone gets tired, we get tired, the military gets tired, and the audience, especially foreigners, gets tired. It's just that a lot of other things have happened. Of course, the war in The Hague between Israel and Hamas interrupted a lot of things. I don't like the word "surprise," but you have to look for something very special to make the headlines. I have a story like that. I worked with a Belgian newspaper in the Kharkiv region. At that time, villages and towns around Kharkiv were liberated. We came with a journalist, she was very good, older, super-empathetic, super-cool. We came to the village of Kutuzivka in the Kharkiv region. The whole village lives in the basement. There have been no hostilities for several months, but they live in the basement because they are scared, because they are used to it. And we are making a story about it. I think it's a great story, but the journalist sadly says that after the stories from Kyiv region, Bucha, Borodyanka, we need something else. This will not do. So we looked for some other angles to cover it. With the Wall Street Journal, we are now doing a lot of stories about technology, drones, and how the war is changing in this regard. And we are looking for personal stories, some complex and multifaceted ones.

You take pictures of evacuations, the war zone, talk to the military, see all the destruction and consequences of the war. How do you work in such a marathon for so long?

For me, it's definitely easier to shoot and work than not to. In fact, photography literally saved me at the beginning of the war because I knew what to do. I had a job, an occupation - it's certainly not as important and nothing compared to the work of boys and girls in the Defense Forces, but covering the war in Ukraine for an international audience makes sense, I believe in it. And I started working very actively right from the beginning of the invasion, I was involved. And my moral state was just pulled up by it, because I was doing something.

Photography still saves me.

The other side of the coin is when you are afraid of missing something. I don't know how I will live and work after the war. It is important for me to be involved in some processes. I really love my profession because of the opportunity I am given. Even if I shoot quite difficult stories. At first, it was hard and mentally shaky, and then, perhaps, like doctors, I developed a certain cynicism - work is work.

But in terms of working with the characters and not harming the people we are filming. Because, indeed, people are very often in a vulnerable state. This is a very long conversation. This month, there have been several public scandals about the coverage of the sites of shelling. When there was an attack in Kyiv, ballistics destroyed a house. My colleagues and I filmed people being carried away, often naked and unconscious. And some of the photos were quite explicit, even for me. And there was a lot of hate against photojournalists for using these people. And it's really hard.

It's hard to find that balance between what's really important to show. Especially now, with the Trump administration. And on the other hand, not to harm or use these people, who even now cannot resist. If they don't want to be filmed, they just can't say so-they're not in the mood. Often, the people we film are simply not in the mood, and they may not want to be filmed. This has been going on for generations of photojournalists. It's a debate - there is no answer. And shooting funerals, for example. We also get a lot of criticism that photographers literally climb into the coffin, some shoot with flashes. I think it's worth showing. Especially if it's a public burial. People gather and it is very powerful. It shows how grateful we are, that we care as a nation. And you are constantly looking for this balance. We really hurt our heroes, I realize that. Our work is necessary and in a sense harmful. And it's hard to live with that. But we cannot stop doing it either.

Марія Литянська