The post used the phrase "all known conflicts in the history of the world". Is world war 2 not a known conflict?

I do not know how many journalists were killed in most conflicts. I do know more than 242 were killed during world war 2, so on its face the claim seems false that it is the deadliest war for journalists in the history of the universe.

The only way their claim can possibly make sense is if they are using different definitions between wars. I'm assuming that to give them the benefit of the doubt. The only alternative explanation i can see is they are straight up lying.

I don't know enough to verify related claims, like deadliest for journalists post world war 2. However given the source seems to be blatently incorrect, i'm not really inclined to believe them on related claims.

It takes like 30s of reading to figure out their criteria: an average of 13 journalists per week. That is the number they are usung to compare conflicts. Do you know how many journalists were killed on average per week of ww2? Because unless you know, you are just denying based on vibes i guess? When I google it the number that comes up is 69 - so unless ww2 was a lot shorter than i remember, fewer than 13/week seem to have been killed - at least by the records we have.

I said that the nature of journalism has changed since ww2, because there’s a lot more citizen-journalism - which probably means there are more journalists around to be killed today than during most conflicts in history. So it doesn’t actually surprise me that the highest number would be from a conflict post-2010.