How Media Representation of Refugees Impacts Refugee Politics
By: Ben Barr
Tags: Language, Borders, Politics, Refugees, International Relations

How Media Representation of Refugees Impacts Refugee Politics

Media outlets are able to influence refugee politics through their use of language and images, but how do they do it and what impact does it have?

Photo by pixpoetry on Unsplash

Mainstream media — print, broadcast and internet — has the power to shape public opinion both positively and negatively. This can influence public attitudes and responses towards refugee politics. The media is able to establish sympathy for refugees and asylum seekers but also, by using propaganda and misrepresentation, assemble a narrative that seeks to discredit and cause hostility. By carefully manipulating language and imagery, the media is able to portray ‘the story they want to tell’ for their benefit, rather than presenting unbiased information aimed at establishing the truth of refugee plight. This can stigmatise the identity of refugees and adversely affect their integration and assimilation into a host society.

Not all publicity is negative however; the media can also choose to pursue a positive narrative in order to apply pressure and catalyse action to improve the political climate as well as the conditions and assistance that is provided to refugees. By analysing the use of language, images and personal stories when describing refugees, one can better understand how the media can influence public perception and impact refugee politics.

Media Use of Language

Terminology

Language is an extremely important tool for media outlets as it can be used to create a specific image of refugees that the public then assumes to be fact. The most significant misrepresentation of refugees in language is derived from the terminology used to segregate refugees from migrants and asylum seekers. Incorrect use of these terms can cause confusion and unwarranted hostility towards refugees. Therefore, it is important to define these terms accurately to understand why they are crucial in undermining the reality refugees face.

Refugees are protected under the 1951 Refugee Convention and “a host state must provide care for them”. If they are mis-categorised as migrants however, they are no longer entitled to the protection of the 1951 Convention. By using the umbrella term ‘migrant’, the media can influence a state to dismiss this category of people and return them to their original state, which could lead to entitled refugees slipping through the net. Pejoratively, “the BBC uses the term migrant to refer to all people on the move who have yet to complete the legal process of claiming asylum.” In contrast, in 2015, when Al Jazeera switched from using ‘Mediterranean migrant crisis’ to ‘Mediterranean refugee crisis’ they changed the narrative; governments could no longer avoid the situation and abuse the media’s naïvety about the ‘crisis’. Al Jazeera’s adjustment helped to increase awareness internationally and raised the importance of language in the media and the consequences of using terms incorrectly.

Metaphors

Metaphors are another important aspect of language, especially in shaping how refugees are represented. A recent study of UK and Australian print media found a prevalent use of metaphors linking refugees to water, criminality and dishonesty. Metaphors for water – words such as ‘flood’ or ‘overflowed’ – imply that refugees are attempting to enter the country in vast numbers. By association, such metaphors can engender negative connotations - the danger a flood poses and the damage that overflow can cause.

By using metaphors, media outlets can create subconscious links to manipulate thought towards dangerous and negative interpretations, all of which can influence public perception and opinion. This view is not limited to the UK and Australia; similar findings can be observed in the print media relating to Syrian refugees and elsewhere in the world. By portraying refugees as an “unwelcome disaster… [and by] detach[ing]… any human aspect” from them, media outlets instil a sense of fear in the population causing them to recognise refugees as a threat, not just to themselves, but to their state and its national interest.

Another term which adds to the negative image is ‘burden’. It creates a sense of hostility towards refugees due to either the host state having to provide financial benefits or, to the possibility that they could ‘steal’ citizens’ jobs. When such language is used in conjunction with false or provocative news, it has the potential to increase the propensity for hatred towards refugees. Furthermore, it can persuade people to support politicians who want to take action against the refugees or subconsciously cause politicians to use similar dehumanising language themselves. This was the case in 2015, when UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, described “migrants seeking to reach Britain as ‘swarms’ of people”.

There is some positive use of language…

Whilst there is a focus on negative language and metaphors, positive language also exists to emphasise “innocence and vulnerability”. This tends to stress the importance and responsibility of a state towards assisting and supporting refugees. In The Telegraph in 2013, it was stated that “the survival ...of a generation of innocents [was at stake]”. This excerpt concentrates attention on the vulnerability of refugees, especially in the younger generation. Another article by The Guardian mentioned the importance of the UK leading the way in taking responsibility and offering a safe place away from the dangers of war and humanitarian crises. Both examples demonstrate that positive terminology can be used by the media to persuade the public and put pressure on government to implement change in order to act with compassion and protect refugees.

Use of Language and Images to Make a Statement

Language has also been used to associate refugees with terrorism. In 2013, The Telegraph stated that “People giving money to help millions of refugees from the civil war in Syria [were]….inadvertently supporting terrorism…”. This has the potential to create an overarching stereotype that presents all Syrian people as terrorists. More dangerously and because of Syria’s regional association, the ill-informed might conclude that, since ‘all Syrians are terrorists’, it must follow that all Muslims must be terrorists; a dangerous and subjective conclusion.

Additionally, Twitter threads have contrasted images of children and male refugees, suggesting that the child is how a refugee should look, whereas men are not ‘real’ refugees, but Muslim terrorists instead. As a result of their portrayal by the media, Syrian military aged men, who had fled conflict without their families, were generalised as Muslim terrorists. Not only does this cause refugees to be segregated through inaccurate labelling, but it can trigger racial hatred, in this case Islamophobia, and cause disharmony both within a state’s population and between states. This has the potential to create an ‘us and them’ mentality, derived from Edward Said’s Orient vs Occident relationship, based on power and domination of the other.

A Polish magazine provides a good example of persuasive language and imagery; in one issue its front cover showed “a white woman being assaulted by three pairs of dark-skinned male hands under the headline ‘The Islamic rape of Europe’.” By combining provocative terms with suggestive images, the media can generate misinformation which could have a catastrophic effect on refugee politics, potentially limiting the number of refugees that might be permitted to enter a state.

This can be illustrated by Donald Trump’s rhetoric on refugees. He combined policy statements with media misinformation on Twitter to suggest that immigrants are linked to drugs, trafficking, and violent crime. In doing so, he gained significant support for his anti-refugee policies. Such a ‘CNN Effect’ — when political action is provoked by real-time media coverage to spark a “call-to-action” — can easily unite the public behind its politicians. In the case of Trump, he was able to place travel bans on several states to constrict the flow of refugees, including “certain Muslim-majority nations” (e.g. Syria and Yemen) and reduce the refugee cap over time, from 45,000 in 2018 to 30,000 in 2019, with further targets set to achieve 18,000 in 2020. Had it not been for misinformation and incorrect labelling by the media, the public may not have felt as threatened by refugees and therefore may have chosen to reject the pursuit of such aggressive anti-refugee policies.

Use of Images

Refugees are also represented in images and film in broadcast media. The portrayal of refugees in this medium has an immediate impact and can generate both positive and negative public sentiment. Broadcast media tends to focus on two main types of story: one which includes data and facts, to group refugees together as an anonymous statistic; the other based upon the personal account of refugee plight, which tends to evoke an emotional and empathic response from the audience.

Images as Statistics

By distancing the viewer from the personal details of refugees, media outlets can alter the way in which they are perceived, shifting the focus away from the humanitarian crisis to issues of national security and the burden on society. This can create a sense of fear and threat within the public which can influence political decision-making.

Australia, for example, has many refugees arriving by boat each year. This illegal means of entry into the state occurs because of an inability to obtain legal entry through a Controlled Migrant Program. In The Australian newspaper, an article depicts images of a boat packed with male refugees with the headline “no vacancy for boatpeople”. This imagery plays upon multiple audience stereotypes to misrepresent refugees as a direct threat to the state’s economic stability – they may steal Australian jobs and threaten border security – rather than focussing on the fact that “migrants often bring enormous benefits to their adopted countries.” Here the media focusses on the mass movement of ‘boatpeople’ and the means by which they try to gain access to the state, to justify why ‘illegal’ refugees are a threat.

Volunteer lifeguards (with yellow-red clothes) from Proactiva Open Arms helping Syrian and Iraqi refugees; Wikipedia, Proactiva open arms

Whilst these images are selective, political and limited by their individuality, they create support for policies that defend borders and protect sovereignty. By presenting refugees as depersonalised and criminalised, the public were led to believe the threat was immediate and significant, which fuelled the main Australian political parties into a competition of promises “to strengthen Australia’s borders and halt the flow of boats.” Conjoining image and language gives media the ability to motivate its audience in a more powerful and emotive way, increasing the likelihood of creating a political movement for change.

Personal Stories

Whilst images have been used to mislead the public and represent refugees as a threat to a state, they have also been used to represent the scale of the humanitarian crisis. By focussing on personal accounts and images – often portrayed by a vulnerable, distressed and suffering female refugee – media outlets can gather interest and invoke empathy or anger from its audience. This is called the ‘identifiable victim effect’. Such was the case with the image of the drowned toddler, Alan Kurdî, as seen below. Prior to the image being released in September 2015, there was little imagery of dead bodies to depict the struggle and dangers that refugees face when crossing borders.

The death of Alan Kurdî‬‎; Flikr

The picture demonstrated the humanitarian side of the refugee crisis and “became a [leitmotiv] for the plight of Syrian asylum seekers, prompting European political leadership and urgent policy actions to address the precarious situations of those living in limbo at the borders.” Whilst the image did elicit the ‘CNN Effect’, it is important to understand what action was taken and how effective it was. Within Europe, especially Germany, the cap on refugees increased significantly, to permit over 1 million refugees’ legal entry. Conversely, even though Britain and Australia promised to increase their resettlement scheme to 12,000 and 20,000 respectively, by April 2016, Australia had only resettled 187 refugees, while the UK had only resettled 1,602. After only one year the majority of these schemes were neglected. This perhaps demonstrates that whilst the image of Kurdi was a precipitous influence, generating immediate action and a change to the refugee resettlement scheme, it did not result in substantial long-term change in attitude.

To Conclude…

Clearly the media can influence and incite political action by altering public perceptions, negatively and positively through manipulating the language and imagery it uses to describe refugees. Media are able to provoke outrage on behalf of, or against, refugees. The consequences of which are potentially monumental, as shown by Trump’s policy changes.

However, not all media coverage is negative. Refugees have been shown in a positive light too, from the suffering and distress they face whilst seeking refuge, to the benefits they can bring to a state. Positive portrayal can help to bring about progressive political change, though it is often much harder to determine the effectiveness of this aspect of political decision-making. Nevertheless, by using language, metaphors and emotive imagery, media outlets are able to persuade and move audience opinion to play to narratives of both threat and empathy. It is the change in narrative that is created by powerful media coverage that can help to force a change in public and political responses.