[Media-watch] FW: Guest Media Alert: Asylum And Immigration

[David Miller]

----------
From: Medialens Media Alerts <noreply at medialens.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 06:24:24 +1000
To: Friend <david.miller at stir.ac.uk>
Subject: Guest Media Alert: Asylum And Immigration

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media

December 8, 2003


GUEST MEDIA ALERT: ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION

Comparing the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent

By Matthew Randall


Introduction: Distorted Agendas

As a rule, UK parliamentary debate on asylum and immigration is both
selective and power serving. While the actual demographic and economic
effects of immigration on the UK are rarely discussed, the causes of
immigration - global inequality, conflict and human rights abuses – are
ignored. 

Irrespective of party, leading politicians repeatedly highlight issues of
exclusion – fears of ‘invasion’, alleged ‘threats’ and actual prejudices -
ensuring a very negative image of immigrants despite their statistically
small impact on society (see below). Concerns over crime, disease,
terrorism, detention and surveillance are consistently pushed well to the
fore. 

This lack of balance can be attributed to a number of factors, including the
existence of a covert racist ideology and the political expediency of ‘the
race card’ - factors that repeatedly compromise the welfare of refugees and
immigrants.

Honest consideration of asylum and immigration issues should involve a far
more diverse range of topics, reflecting the complexity of contemporary
national and global relations. These include issues of nationalism,
sovereignty, racism, demography, human rights, arms sales, war, refugee
health, economic policy and moral responsibility.


Liberal Media Balance?

A truly independent and honest ‘quality’ press would include debate on these
marginalised issues, providing readers with a balance to the distorted focus
of party politics. But does this happen? What +do+ we actually read in
broadsheet newspapers on asylum and immigration? Which themes are
consistently emphasised? And who speaks to us through these articles - who
sets the agenda for discussion?
 
Is appropriate coverage given, for example, to the fact that in 2001 the UK
had only 169,370 officially recognized refugees living within its borders
compared to Germany’s 988,500, Iran’s 1.9 million or Pakistan’s 2.2 million?
Are we made sufficiently aware that during the same year the UK received
71,365 applicants for asylum, granting this status to just 11,180
individuals – 0.02% of the UK population? Or that Pakistan received a single
influx of 199,900 Afghan refugees? Or that the ten largest refugee movements
in 2001 were, with the exception of Yugoslavia, all made between countries
in the Third World?

How many of us learn from our press that UK population growth is slowing
down to the extent that it has actually become a cause for concern? How many
are aware that a 2002 UN report recommended “replacement immigration” as a
solution to this problem, or that the recommendation was rejected by the
European Commission on the grounds that the impact of immigration on
population was insignificant?

What do the media have to say about the fact that the UK has recently sold
arms to all five countries of origin topping the UK list of asylum
applicants in 2001? This, despite the fact that, in each case, violent
military conflict remains the dominant root cause of refugee flight. More
generally, what emphasis is placed on adverse conditions in countries of
origin - poverty, human rights abuses, global income disparity, conflict and
torture - in articles concerned with asylum and immigration?


A Case Study: Immigration, The Propaganda Model, and Three UK Newspapers

With these and other questions in mind, the following case study was carried
out to compare articles from the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian and the
Independent. The methodology was not complex. Using an archive search at
each of the newspaper’s websites, the first thirty articles in 2003 with
titles displaying any of a set of keywords: ‘asylum’, ‘asylum seeker(s)’,
‘immigration’, ‘refugee(s)’ were located and used as a representative
sample. These ninety articles were then analysed to record the themes/topics
discussed. An article merely had to refer once to a certain topic to be
counted as having mentioned it, even if this reference consisted of one
sentence. 

The secondary element of the case study involved identifying the ‘voice’ of
the articles, reflecting the opinions or perspectives consulted and who was
being directly quoted. All opinions and perspectives referred to in an
article were included in the initial count irrespective of whether these
were later criticised either by the journalist or by any other group.

The hypothesis being tested proposed that the three newspapers chosen would
all, despite perceived differing political leanings, discuss topics and
themes in line with the interests of elite power, as predicted by Herman and
Chomsky’s propaganda model of media control. More specifically it was
predicted that macro themes - particularly those reflecting badly on Western
state-corporate power and those providing a more global perspective on
asylum and immigration - would be marginalised, reflecting the preferred
focus of dominant elites.

It was also hypothesised that micro issues, such as asylum accommodation and
welfare payments, would be discussed at great length and would form the
dominant theme of this sample, with topics involving negative portrayals of
immigration – illegality, terrorism, crime and disease – also pushed well to
the fore. 

A further prediction was that the opinions consulted would heavily favour
powerful interests, as predicted by the propaganda model’s third filter (the
sourcing of mass media news). In this way it was anticipated that
high-ranking politicians would form the major ‘voice’ of the articles, with
the people most affected by the issues discussed, i.e. asylum
seekers/immigrants, being heard less often, if at all.


Same Difference – Media Themes

One of the immediately striking results of the case study is the consistent
unity of themes across the different newspapers. The three most popular
themes are the same for all papers, consisting of exclusion policies aimed
at ‘bogus’ asylum applicants (mentioned in 73% of the Guardian articles /
Independent: 80% / Telegraph: 73%), crime/terrorism perpetrated by asylum
seekers (Guardian: 56% / Independent: 60% / Telegraph: 66%) and the
accommodation/detention of applicants awaiting decisions (Guardian: 60% /
Independent: 26% / Telegraph: 36%).

At the other end of the scale, five major themes fail to attract even one
sentence in all ninety articles. These are: effects of immigration on UK
population figures, poverty/ income disparity in sending countries, effects
of the arms trade, effects of Western economic policies in sending
countries, and comparisons of UK refugee intake with Third World countries.
 
According to the study, the leading topics for press debate on asylum and
immigration are clearly micro issues, irrespective of a newspaper’s
political ideology. The two most dominant themes both reflect negatively on
the subject of discussion: the criminal/terrorist activities of asylum
seekers/ immigrants, and policies to exclude ‘bogus’/illegal individuals
from the UK. 

The opinions conveyed on these matters vary between journalists and
newspapers. The fact remains, however, that when a reader opened these
newspapers and read an article mentioning asylum, refugee or immigration in
the title, 56% of the articles mentioned crime or terrorism and at least 73%
discussed policies designed to exclude fraudulent applications.

It is interesting to compare coverage afforded to crime committed by asylum
seekers/immigrants with coverage afforded to crime committed +against+ them
by other groups. The Telegraph, for example, discusses the former in exactly
two thirds of the case study, while failing to make one reference to the
latter. The other two newspapers also follow this trend, albeit to a
slightly lesser degree. Overall, in the ninety articles, 61% refer to
immigrant criminal activities, with just 8.8% mentioning crimes against
immigrants. 

These figures tell us much about the degree to which these articles discuss
issues that promote fear and prejudice in the UK population, a choice that
is closely aligned with the agenda of political elites. The issue of asylum
and immigration is reported in terms of a ‘threat’ and ‘invasion’ despite a
lack of statistical evidence supporting such dramatic claims. Thus, as can
be seen from the above example, the huge number of crimes committed against
immigrants - ranging from torture, forced eviction and illegal detention in
their countries of origin to property abuse and physical violence in the UK
- is given far less attention than the much smaller proportion of crimes
committed by immigrants themselves.

Continuing this trend, all three newspapers produce more articles
referencing the health risks from immigrants (an unsubstantiated concern
dismissed as early as 1903 by the Royal Commission on Aliens), than those
mentioning the health of asylum seekers who often arrive recovering from
trauma, torture, malnutrition and physical violence.


Macro Themes – Minor Coverage

As predicted, macro themes are very poorly represented in this case study.
Comparative analyses of immigration and asylum worldwide are barely
referenced at all. When this does briefly emerge, the issue in all cases
involves a positive commentary on the strict exclusion policies of other
European countries, and not, as might be expected, any analysis of the UK’s
comparatively low intake. Discussion of the number of refugees and migrants
entering and living in non-western countries is completely absent from all
ninety articles - a major omission given the huge statistical discrepancies
existing between these two groups and the clear relevance this would have
for UK policy. 

Other macro themes focusing on important root causes of immigration and
refugee flight, such as war, torture, poverty and oppression, are referred
to fleetingly, if at all. The effects of poverty and inequality in sending
countries are deemed unworthy of mention in any newspaper despite extensive
coverage detailing politicians’ condemnations of ‘bogus’ and ‘illegal’
‘economic immigration’.

Analysis of the economic conditions that might lie behind these ‘illegal’
attempts to enter the UK is therefore absent. War and violent conflict are
mentioned in just eight of ninety articles in all three newspapers, a very
low figure when compared with the thirty-seven articles discussing the
relatively minor issue of asylum seeker accommodation. That these articles
were published during the intensive build-up to the US/UK invasion of Iraq
did not appear to have any affect on this figure, despite the fact that a
large proportion of UK asylum applicants arrive from Iraq.

Only one article in the Guardian discusses the potential effect of the
invasion on refugee numbers. This minimal coverage reflects a general
failure to discuss the situation in sending countries. In each newspaper
this theme warrants a reference in just two articles, 6% of the material
studied. 

The fundamental macro issue of demography – indicating both the
insignificant effects of immigration on population growth and its
potentially positive effects on the UK’s aging population - is not mentioned
throughout the case study.

Macro issues that might embarrass powerful state-corporate interests are
also ignored or neglected. Two major examples include the impacts of the
arms trade and economic trade liberalisation. The former receives no mention
at all, while the latter is hinted at (indirectly) in one piece in the
Guardian. This consists of a brief sentence by a Catholic Bishop, stating
that asylum seekers were a symptom of “a tragically disordered world;
victims of unjust social, economic and political structures.”

The one ‘awkward’ theme for elites that appears to receive a proportionate
share of coverage is that of human rights. This issue is referenced in
nineteen of the ninety articles, a total of 21%. However this exception
becomes less outstanding when the nature of the references becomes clear:
sixteen of these nineteen references relate to the same story - initiated by
comments from both government and opposition politicians - that the UK might
be forced to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights in order
to continue its justified exclusion of certain asylum seekers.

Although this is a human rights issue, it is placed in the context of
exclusion policies and ‘bogus’ asylum applicants. This limits to just three
articles any mention of human rights abuses in the country of origin –
abuses that might have caused the original application to be made, and which
cast a far less negative light on the subject of asylum and immigration.

An interesting, perhaps ironic, footnote to the thematic results involves
the eight references made to media coverage. Both the Guardian and the
Independent provide a number of articles denouncing what they describe as
the essentially racist coverage of tabloid and right-wing newspapers,
including the third news outlet in this case study, the Daily Telegraph. The
latter does not follow this theme and has no articles mentioning media
coverage. 

However, as this case study shows, although opinions expressed on
immigration themes certainly illustrate ideological differences between
‘right-wing’ newspapers such as the Telegraph and the more ‘liberal’
Independent/Guardian, there is clear conformity when it comes to deciding
+which+ themes to discuss – a fundamental conformity which closely follows
the predictions of the propaganda model. Comment on this aspect of coverage
does not feature in the Guardian/ Independent articles criticising media
performance.


Opinion Groups
 
As predicted, the major opinion groups consulted by all three newspapers
were either government or opposition politicians. Overall the opinions of
politicians are referenced in seventy-two of the ninety articles, or 80% of
the material studied. By contrast, the major subjects of discussion, i.e.
immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers, express their views in five
articles, 6% of the case study.

In the Daily Telegraph, politicians are quoted in twenty-three of the thirty
articles whereas only one asylum seeker is afforded an equivalent forum.
Even this one exception consists of only two short sentences. In the
Independent statements by politicians are referenced in 76% of its articles
while the opinions of asylum seekers and refugees can be heard in only 3% of
the sample.    

The second major group represented in the articles are non-governmental
(NGO) spokespeople who have their opinions recorded in just under a third of
the case study. This would seem to suggest a certain level of balance
afforded to people outside elite political circles. However a closer
analysis shows that politicians remain overwhelmingly the agenda-setters in
these articles with NGO representatives very seldom initiating the subject
of the news item. Their role is very much confined to reaction and comment.
Of the fifteen Guardian articles that give NGO opinions, ten are in specific
reply to a government initiative or statement.

This essentially passive role in defining which events are newsworthy,
results in a clear lack of themes that one would expect to be highlighted by
organisations working directly with refugees and asylum seekers. Only two
Guardian articles provide exceptions to this trend, with one warning of a
refugee crisis and the other highlighting the racist violence visited on
immigrants. 

Despite the substantial body of academic research devoted to the subject of
immigration and asylum, the opinions of independent academics are
effectively absent from the case study. Only one article of the ninety
references an academic source. Even this one exception does not quote a
scientific study, choosing instead to mention an anecdotal account of a
Cambridge professor.

The huge dominance of party political opinion in the case study lends
particular credence to the propaganda model’s third filter. Analysis of
media sourcing demonstrates that UK newsgathering has a strong symbiotic
relationship with political elites ensuring that a substantial number of
articles are formed around government press releases and statements of
policy. Groups without recourse to large public relations resources - such
as asylum seekers, refugees and the predominantly small NGOs that represent
them - tend not to set the agenda for issues under discussion.


Conclusion

The results of this case study indicate a consistent tendency amongst
ideologically distinct newspapers to focus on aspects of immigration and
asylum that concur with the priorities of the political elite. These are
aspects, moreover, that represent an extremely narrow range of information
and opinion. 

The argument is not that individual journalists necessarily support the
agenda of political elites - many articles argue fiercely against government
policy. However, indirect support of this agenda occurs through the
significant avoidance and omission of important themes and issues that
should form regular and central points of reference.


Matthew Randall lives, works and studies in Berlin, Germany, where he
recently completed a postgraduate Masters Degree in Intercultural Work and
Conflict Management.


SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for
others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to
maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian:
Email: alan.rusbridger at guardian.co.uk

Write to Simon Kelner, editor of the Independent:
simon.kelner at independent.co.uk

Write to Martin Newland, editor of the Daily Telegraph:
Email: Martin.Newland at telegraph.co.uk

And also to us at Media Lens: editor at medialens.org
 
Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

Please consider donating to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate.html

This media alert will shortly be archived at:
http://www.MediaLens.org/alerts/index.html





To unsubscribe click on the link below:
http://www.medialens.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/medialens/mailproc/register.cgi?em=
david.miller at stir.ac.uk&act=un&at=2