Immigration

Media Coverage

Media portrayal of immigration and asylum issues was quite mainstream in 2003, for example. However, a look at how three mainstream British papers, the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent, respectively from the political right, left and center, reveals a common set of problems and similar levels of bias, as Matthew Randall summarizes:

Often asked in England is why everyone wants to come to England. Yet, Randall, in the same article also notes that wider context is ignored leading to various skewed perceptions:

Randall also notes that, 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. (Emphasis added). For example, the huge number of crimes committed against immigrants — 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.

In terms of global context and wider coverage, the study noted:

• 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 studied.
• 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.
  • 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.
  • 6% of the articles studied from these papers covered the situtation in sending countries, reflecting a general failure to discuss such aspects.
  • 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.
  • The majority of articles that discussed human rights as a theme covered the same issue, about UK consiering withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights in order to justify the exclusion of certain asylum seekers. Yet, while 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.

In looking at the media coverage, an interesting observation was made:

While a full third of the case studies afforded view points from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (politicians being afforded the most coverage) giving the sense of balance, Randall notes that, 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.

This general trend reveals how view points representing those who have influence are the ones that typically make it into mainstream discourse. 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.

We therefore get a strange situation whereby ideologically distinct newspapers focus on aspects of immigration and asylum that concur with the priorities of the political elite.... [representing] an extremely narrow range of information and opinion. The significant avoidance and omission of important themes and issues that should form regular and central points of reference leads to a support of an agenda of the political elite, even if that is not the intention.

Opinions reflect hype — especially during election time

Almost a year and a half since the above was written, the hype has remained. And as the British 2005 elections have drawn closer, the issue of immigration and asylum has been one of the issues discussed (out of an extremely small number of issues, it has to be added).

In a poll on immigration conducted for ITV News in the UK (April 2005), some interesting observations were made:

• 73% of people thought too many immigrants were allowed into the UK – and just 3% believed that not enough were allowed;
• 75% believe immigrants put a strain on public services;
• 39% of people believed immigrants bring disease to the UK;
• 25% felt migrants make Britain a thriving multicultural society;

In testing some of these views, ITV noted the following:

• In the 2002/3 tax year, 272,000 people came to the UK from across the world and were given a national insurance number. Just 8% went on to claim benefits;
• Between May and December 2004, 133,000 from the new EU countries registered to work in the UK. Just 21 of them were allowed to claim benefits (0.016%!)
• On HIV, the Health Protection Agency does estimate that 75% of new heterosexual infections in 2003 were probably acquired in Africa. On Tuberculosis (TB), public health figures said 67% of TB infections were born abroad in 2002. But targeted screening at Heathrow airport found just 100 cases in 175,000 tests in 2004 (0.057%!). The British Medical Association said it has seen no evidence of a health tourism phenomenon.

For a long time, but increasingly during election times, spear-headed by right-wing parties such as the Conservatives and tabloid media, scares of immigration being out of control are returning.

For sure, there have been isolated incidents that cause much concern, such as the recent case of a failed asylum seeker killing a police officer and conspiring to create the deadly poison ricin (though it seems police foiled that in time).

However, using terrorism to add to the asylum and immigration hysteria just creates more fear and animosity. In effect, it also suggests that almost all (especially brown-skinned) asylum seekers and immigrants are potential terrorists.

(It has even got to the point where I know some fellow Asians in UK who also say that immigration is out of control, though they talk not of people from their own ethnicities and backgrounds of course, but of others.)

Furthermore, the impact on public services, like health, of obesity, excessive sugar/beef-based diets, tobacco and other unhealthy items far outweighs the impacts immigrants have on such services. (For more details on these impacts, see this site's section on behind consumption and consumerism, and on causes of hunger.) These other problems not only affect British people, but also have a significant impact on other parts of the world. Notably, there has almost been nothing discussed on these other issues during the same election campaign, in either a national or international context. Instead, immigration has been publicized as a more important issue.