The ongoing turmoil in the Middle East is intensifying, with significant developments unfolding as the United States and Israel launch attacks on Iran. In response, Iran has retaliated with strikes on several Gulf nations, impacting key locations, including major travel centers like Dubai.

As these events unfold, there is growing concern about how audiences are processing the continuous stream of distressing images and narratives of conflict. This raises questions about the potential impact on mental health.

A report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in 2025 highlights a notable increase in news avoidance worldwide. This trend is particularly evident among younger individuals and those without a university education.

The research, which has been monitoring 17 countries since 2015, including Australia, identifies the primary reason for this avoidance as the negative impact news has on people’s moods, alongside the overwhelming coverage of conflict and warfare.

What is ‘atrocity fatigue’?

This phenomenon raises the question: Is this avoidance a sign of compassion fatigue, or is it a reaction to the secondary trauma experienced from such exposure?

Experts suggest that it could very well be a combination of both factors.

Ayesha Jehangir, a lecturer in journalism and communication specialising in war and conflict reporting at the University of New South Wales, said there is a concern about desensitisation to atrocities.

But she said it’s not simply a matter of people not caring.

“Susan Sontag argues that repeated exposure to images of suffering can gradually dull the initial shock,” Jehangir said.

“When audiences see destruction or injured civilians or bodies being pulled out from rubble as we have been witnessing those or grieving families again and again, the images do start to become a blur.”

Jehangir uses the term “atrocity fatigue” to explain this phenomenon.

“Particularly stories about atrocity, after another, after another, and then the normalisation of those atrocities can cause atrocity fatigue,” Jehangir said.

“There’s a gradual emotional numbing that occurs when audiences are repeatedly exposed to news and images of conflict, crisis and human suffering.”

Vicarious trauma and news avoidance

At the same time, repeated exposure to such horrors can lead to vicarious trauma.

Professor in psychiatry and mental health from the University of New South Wales, Susan Rees, said repeated exposure to violent imagery, particularly through our 24-hour news cycle, can produce secondary or vicarious trauma.

In her various research into trauma-affected populations, as well as conflict and trauma, Rees applies the definition of trauma used by the American Psychiatric Association.

It describes trauma as witnessing or experiencing an extreme stress that overwhelms a person’s ability to cope or contradicts one’s worldview.

“This can even happen for people who are geographically distanced from those events,” Rees said.

Her recent research into the psychological impact of conflict in the Middle East on the Australian population shows people with particular geographical, familial or cultural ties to a place affected by conflict can suffer significant psychological distress.

The research examining mental health outcomes on Australian resident women over a period during the 2023-25 Middle East conflict, primarily involving Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Lebanon, found an increase in panic disorder symptoms among the group during the conflict when compared to beforehand.

But Rees said anyone witnessing repeated atrocities can experience vicarious trauma, referencing research conducted following the September 11 terrorist attack and the Boston marathon bombing.

“When you have all that media exposure, it can create acute stress symptoms in people, anxiety, sleep disturbances, intrusive imagery, and this just heightened perceptions of threat,” Rees said.

What role does social media play?

Social media certainly appears to be playing a role in influencing experiences of vicarious trauma and atrocity fatigue.

The Reuters Digital report noted an accelerating shift towards consumption via social media and video platforms, contributing to a fragmented alternative media environment which can threaten fact-based reporting.

Alexandra Wake is a professor in journalism at RMIT University, with expertise in trauma-informed journalism.

She said traditional broadcast journalism typically edits stories to remove the most graphic imagery and details, while social media is completely unfiltered.

“Since live streaming became a thing on people’s phones that everyone in the world now has the ability to pick up the phone and start filming, we now through social media are exposed to the most horrific unedited events that happen around us and all over the world,” Wake said.

This social media inundation can also lead to a sense of helplessness, Wake said, causing people to turn away.

“And also, I think sitting here in Australia, for many of us, we have no capacity to do anything or to influence the events,” Wake said.

“Some days I just don’t want to watch it because there’s nothing I can do to stop it happening.”

Jehangir references the Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan, who argued that the medium is the message. In other words, the technology or platform through which information is delivered to the public, changes how people perceive and experience that information.

Jehangir said when you apply this to social media, the medium is no longer the message because most of our consumption is occurring digitally.

“What then happens … violence becomes the message itself,” Jehangir said.

“And so this violence that is being, of course, conveyed to us hours and hours again and again, starts to affect us in a way where we start normalising these things.”

‘Compassion fatigue’ beyond firsthand trauma

Dr Rees says colleagues in psychology and psychiatric research typically use the term “compassion fatigue” in reference to people directly impacted by or working in traumatic circumstances.

But now, she said, it’s affecting more of the general public in a digital media environment of relentless exposure to war and suffering.

“This produces this sort of empathic distress where over time it can produce this emotional numbing effect, this withdrawal, this avoidance,” Rees said.

“And I think it’s often a protective coping response to this endless exposure. The person becomes emotionally exhausted by it, especially when, and this is really important, they’re not able to enact change or take any action to help those being harmed.”

Should we turn away from the news cycle?

Experts say there are ways to manage this feeling of helplessness and fatigue when it comes to news consumption.

As a journalist who conducts research and work in the trauma space, Wake advises people refine their consumption to a particular platform and organisation to prevent overwhelm.

“I truly believe that just one half-hour news bulletin a night is more than enough for people or a daily newspaper or even one radio current affairs program, or even looking online,” Wake said.

The news industry can also play a role, according to Jehangir who said language and context matters in reporting of violence and conflict.

“Begin by reporting war and conflict and suffering that comes with it in ways that foreground human consequences rather than sanitised military language,” Jehangir said.

She said it’s also important to “carefully choose who is speaking on behalf of whom” and to ensure context is always present.

“So this means providing context that explains why violence occurs, why certain images are published and why others are not.”

Managing our news diet

Rees agrees that the answer is not necessarily to turn away from the news cycle entirely, but to manage the amount and type of consumption.

“People need to limit time, set aside time for watching it but don’t let … it become an obsession or become compulsive when you’re listening all the time, because that’s not healthy,” Rees said.

She also said “superficial” graphic imagery without context should be “guarded against”.

Rees suggests individuals find tangible ways to respond to conflict and atrocities which provide a healthy sense of agency, including engaging with humanitarian responses, fundraising, sharing information, or even attending rallies.

“But what can you do to become more empowered? What sort of actions can you do to actually help your mental health and help you to feel like you have agency?” Rees said.

“Things like that where you feel like you’re part of a group that really care and that you really feel like you’re doing something, and that’s really empowering and really good for mental health.”

For the latest from SBS News, download our app and subscribe to our newsletter.