(This text is not meant to claim 100% applicability, but I suppose readers will know areas where the observations apply.)
One stereotype of journalists is that they're hating war and seek out the horrors of war for reporting in order to discourage warfare or pushing for an end thereof. Another stereotype say they do it because of petty sensationalism. It's probably both quite often.
The role of journalism as a whole in the 'war of peace' question appears to be mixed, though: Prior to a war they are very keen to relay rumours, assertions and doom scenarios - and I claim this is both because of sensationalism and because some of them really feel too much kinship with the power elite (or just kiss their feet in order to gain and retain "access".
There is thus at times a divide between effectively warmongering 'journalists' in safe, climatised TV studios and newspaper HQs at home and the at tims rather contra-war war reporters who then report on what war is really like (possibly after a jingoistic invasion phase with lots of mil porn).
The latter may under certain circumstances actually prolong and worsen the war by reporting about its horrors and failures, though. Sure, this is counter-intuitive and seemingly paradox.
(I love this. Trivial things are boring, but exceptions, counter-intuitive stuff and paradoxes - that's exciting!)
Well, how could they have such an effect?
Some Western asshole sends troops to invade another country*, but the war doesn't go so well (it almost never does). The asshole's subordinates begin to understand that it's going to be a not worthwhile mess and begin to advise to pull out.
The enemy understands the same and happens to be smart (not a common occasion under such stress): They correctly determine that Westerners are about as fanatic about saving face as are Japanese, for example. Westerners are just not as frank and honest about it. So one of the quickest ways to peace is not a thorough defeat of the asshole, but to offer him (or her) a face-saving way out, a compromise which offers plenty spin material for the asshole, but doesn't hurt the defender more than a continued warfare (which is a quite easily-met criterion).
Now imagine the war reporter's role: What's more beneficial to this peace-seeking diplomacy? Exposing how aggressor forces get defeated and behave barbaric or avoiding to embarrass the asshole?
I built another counter-intuitive facet of warfare into my example, of course: Sometimes "winning" tactically may actually be strategically detrimental even if you don't alienate anyone in-country.
I really do love these exceptions, counter-intuitive and seemingly paradox stuff. (Recommendation: Read Luttwak's book "Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace"). The obvious, superficial stuff is usually boring, even if attractive to the eyes. Rarely does understanding of superficialities (such as "longer spears are longer") win the day.
*: It's difficult nowadays to imagine a non-Western country being the aggressor..