Is there any truth in the saying “no news is good news” or is there a reason to question whether media actually do reflect the world’s worst conflicts proportionally? The communication technologies have seen major developments in recent years, and more and more people choose to read their news on the Internet. With smartphones and other devices, one could imagine that there would be easier to cover more conflict areas than ever – but is this what has happened? In this study we aimed to investigate how three chosen Swedish newspapers reflected five of the on-going conflicts of 2012 and how this can be explained with the theories; the CNN effect and Stealth Conflicts. We started out with studies of the two theories. The definition of “conflict” used in this study is Uppsala Conflict Data Program’s “war and minor conflict”. Then a quantitative study followed, where we used the three newspapers’ websites to search for articles about our chosen conflict areas: Algeria, Israel, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Syria. The conclusion of this study is that there is, at least among our chosen newspapers, a disproportionate covering of the world’s conflicts, with the exception of Syria. This matches largely with how the two theories explain the media’s covering of conflicts, but we found a deeper explanation in the Stealth Conflict theory, though the CNN effect stood for interesting points as well. The theories could benefit from a merger since that would create a theory with a wider range of explanation tools of why the conflict news reports looks and works the way it does and of its consequences.