"We didn't see what happened after mortars landed, only the puff of smoke. There were horrors that were completely left out of this war. So was this journalism? Or was this coverage?"

The quote by Ashleigh Banfield checks out the ethical and philosophical limits of journalism, especially in the context of war reporting. It raises questions about the level to which media coverage can truly represent the events it seeks to portray, particularly in chaotic and highly harmful scenarios like warfare.

"We didn't see what occurred after mortars landed, only the puff of smoke," suggests the constraints in recording the complete scope of occasions on the ground. The imagery of "the puff of smoke" acts as a metaphor for the insufficient and selective nature of media narratives. It indicates that journalists, constrained by the immediacy and danger of their scenarios, frequently miss out on the detailed nuances and aftermath of explosive and impactful events. The focus is predominantly on what is right away visible or astonishing, rather than on the deeper, often hidden, effects and experiences of those included. This can lead to an incomplete portrayal, potentially lessening the human cost and suffering endemic to clash zones.

The expression "There were horrors that were entirely left out of this war," speaks with the ethical issue faced by reporters. It reflects the understanding that much of what constitutes truth in battle zone goes undocumented; not always by choice, but due to practical limitations and factors to consider of risk to life and security. It echoes a wider critique that media, bound by logistical and temporal restrictions, typically stops working to convey the full weight of human disaster and the complex geopolitical narratives at play.

Lastly, Banfield's questions--"So was this journalism? Or was this protection?"-- trigger a reflection on the function and purpose of journalism itself. On one hand, journalism can be comprehended as an undertaking to discover and represent fact, notified by strenuous investigation and analysis. On the other hand, 'coverage' might recommend a more superficial, narrative-driven portrayal that is more about providing a story than uncovering much deeper realities. Through this self-questioning, Banfield challenges her audience to think about the function media need to play in shaping public understanding and discourse, particularly in relation to the fairly stuffed arena of war reporting.