The topic of human migration has featured in every medium of communication in the recent past. Driven by natural and artificial forces such as drought, civil war, poverty, and political unrests, migration has created an imbalance on jobs, space, identity, and resource allocation in host countries. The United States as a recipient of immigrants has not shunned both criticism and praise on how its policies respond to immigrants from the Americas and other neighbouring regions. Due to the involvement of politics in the social issue of immigration, media houses have been active actors in shaping anti-immigration responses from the public and policymakers alike. While the United States has long offered a promise of opportunity and lasting peace and safety for asylum seekers, media portrayal of refugees has played an adverse role in influencing and shaping the public attitude and opinion towards immigrants. Media coverage of news and images of immigrants criminalize and dehumanize asylum seekers by focusing on negative side of immigration such as border arrests and detentions, capturing emotional pictures, and portraying immigrants as a threat instead of focusing on benefits. The outcome is that hosts develop negative perception of immigrants.
Both documented and undocumented immigrants have endured the pain of racial profiling, fear of deportation, constant surveillance, and discriminatory laws and policies that harass and frustrate their identity in the US (Conzo et al., 2021, para. 2). Emerging research and literature on the role of media and political framing reveals that journalists play a direct role in influencing public attitude towards undocumented immigrants, as well as implementation of policies and enforcement of laws that restrict entry of asylum seekers. Conservative media perpetuates hatred and negative attitude towards immigrants by spreading false propaganda about immigrants. In a study carried out by Faris and Healther (2018, 820), the authors explain how conservative media criminalizes immigration by using titles and choosing words that blame immigrants for contributing to economic and social problems facing the US. An analysis of one of the US media coverage of expulsion of Haitians in Del Rio reveals how media fostered and created a negative attitude towards asylum seekers in the host country of the US.
It is almost a year now after the US government launched and implemented what it called a “comprehensive strategy” to expel undocumented immigrants in Del Rio. For news readers, the events at Del Rio may not have any emotional or social impact, because the US media has created and cultivated negative framing of undocumented immigrants. The title of the article by Villareal (2022) indicates that news media reporting is not all about passing the message, but has a hidden intent that the title seeks to fulfill. Cooper et al. (2021) explained that conservative media tend to use “catchy titles,” with the intention of capturing and retaining the attention of the reader. In so doing, the journalist fails to fulfill the role of informing the audience. The goal is to attract the attention of the audience and sway the emotions towards what the journalist wants the reader to get. This strategy has been described in the Media Framing Theory. Cooper et al. (2021) defined media framing theory as a strategy of packaging and framing information to communicate a particular point of interest. Journalists can capture and highlight certain events such as the case of Del Rio, and place them within a certain context with the intention of encouraging or discouraging specific interpretations. It uses a narrowed and pre-planned contextualization that has to be fulfilled once the message has been passed to the target audience.
In the news article by Villareal (2022), the journalist captures dehumanizing images of refugees in Del Rio and accompanies the image with descriptive text about life of refugees at the border. The text narrowed to the dehumanizing condition and living standards of refugees, the role of security personnel in deporting Haitians, and the situation in Haiti where violence, gangs, robbery, and political assassinations. The last sentence in Villareal (2020) news article reads, “Sending them back to Haiti is just killing them twice.” This statement can be misinterpreted to mean that Haitians are responsible for insecurity in their home country. Furthermore, there is nowhere in the article where Villareal (2020) makes an attempt to discuss the importance of allowing asylum seekers into the US. Instead, all the paragraphs in the article focus on negative events associated with Haitians and how the government’s decision to implement the “comprehensive strategy” has been carried out.
Previous studies have found that media plays a direct role in swaying and influencing public opinion on political topics. Cooper et al. (2020) analyzed 920 newspapers and 1044 popular news outlets to determine how media coverage of asylum seekers influenced public opinion in the host country. The analysis focused on terminologies used and topics associated with refugees such as “crisis” that depict immigrants as a threat to the social and economic security of the host country. While the perpetrators of criminal activities and violence are not always the migrants, media outlets hardly distinguish between “good” and “bad” migrants when reporting on events associated with asylum seekers. According to Scherman et al. (2021), refugees from countries affected by political turbulences are labelled “criminals” and have to be deported back to their countries for failing to build and create peace in their home countries.
Media conversations and reporting around the topic of migrants and migration cannot be ignored. Stetka et al. (2021) stated that journalists and media outlets play a crucial role in mediating public conversations and attitudes towards refugees, immigrants, and asylum seekers. Press can either foster discriminatory policies and negative attitudes, or can discourage hostile attitude depending on how the reported content is packaged and presented to the audience. For instance, when journalists concentrate on crisis moments alone while ignoring the mediating roles and efforts such as the positive aspects associated refugees and the importance of allowing them access to the US. Cooper (2021) provided an analysis that can be used to understand how media framing of refugees affects potential attitude in the host country and the impact on social justice. The use of terms such as “wave” and “flood” depicts refugees as a threat to the host country because the recipient nation risks being overwhelmed by the incoming group. These terminologies are both harmful and demeaning to asylum seekers and immigrants because they create the notion of “we” versus “them,” where “we” is the host citizen and “them” is the incoming person. The consumer of news filled with “flood” and “wave” information is forced to believe that the other group is significantly different and should not be allowed into the country.
Conservative news outlets have often chosen topics that do not show that the media dislikes the individual, but instead describes the immigrant and asylum seeker as a threat to the life of Americans. Valente et al. (2021) compared conservative newspapers with liberal newspapers on framing the events and issues associated with asylum seekers. The study found that while liberal newspapers were more concerned with addressing issues related to the humanitarian crisis facing refugees, conservative media houses were hosting politicians to discuss the impact of immigrants to the economy. The politicians did not mention the positive aspect of the economy, but were more concerned with the negative events that had caused migrants to flee from their own countries, blaming the leaders for the outcomes. When wealthy and powerful politicians are invited to discuss the issues of migrants, they shift the attention of the public towards the political tone, leaving the humanitarian aspect that could have helped the needy migrants.
Both mainstream and popular news outlets on social media and other social networking sites are used as tools of misinformation and disinformation about refugees, undocumented immigrants, and asylum seekers. Unfortunately, the disinformation and misinformation are captured by influential politicians and used to earn political mileage from uninformed supporters. One such aspect has been cited in Scherman et al. (2021) on the influence of media discussions and the perception of migrants. Disinformation is understood as false propaganda and lies that spread with an intention of causing harm or redirecting public discussions and attitudes from the migrant topic towards another issue. For instance, there are cases where misinformation such as rumours concerning the Haitian immigrants focus on how men are the only ones fleeing from their home countries, leaving women and children in political turmoil. While such statement appears simple, it can e misinterpreted and be used as a tool for mistreatment and discrimination of migrants at the border. There are cases where the public and policy discussions in the US media houses are swayed from discussing the humanitarian issues facing the migrants and refugees to the discussion of security matters and threats posed by male asylum seekers to the US. The change in policy discussions deteriorates the already weakened humanitarian agenda in the country.
Misinformation about refugees can also trigger hostility and make it difficult for the host country to allow them to cross the border. The US “comprehensive strategy” on handling Haitian migrants and forceful deportation at Del Rio can be considered as a product of disinformation and misinformation in public discussions and media representation of refugees. According to Conzo et al. (2021), conspiracy theories about migrants such as reports indicating that wealthy migrants are fleeing to the US tend to trigger hostility and negative attitude towards asylum seekers. Consider the example of media portraying and conveying false news that thousands of migrants at the border are wealthy, but the US government is spending billions of dollars to deport them or to accommodate and facilitate their entry into the country. Even though such information is intended to inform, it also holds the power to shape and alter the attitude of natives towards incoming asylum seekers. For instance, natives may develop fear and develop hostility towards refugees for wasting money that could have been redirected towards other essential programs and services. Politicians may respond by becoming more restrictive about the person that is allowed to cross the border because of potential benefits from refugees. The outcome of such discussions is harmful to people who may not have time to explain the reason why they are fleeing their home countries.
The consequences of fake news on migrants and asylum seekers cannot be underestimated. Fake news refers to unverified information that spreads fear and hatred or seeks to misinform the public about a trending topic. When used in the context of migration, fake news can alter public discussions and policy response towards migrants. Mainstream media outlets are often captured in the trap of copying news from popular websites and blogs without spending time to verify the news to determine if what they are reporting is true. Some journalists are also afraid of going to the site at the border to capture real information about the crisis; hence they invite local politicians to the media houses without a representation of victims at the border. Unfortunately, the people that discuss and report about migrant and refugee issues are neither victims nor people who are experiencing humanitarian crisis. They are people who are either vying for political seats or people with hidden agenda to benefit from the topic. Some of them end up criminalizing immigration as discussed in Farris and Heather (2018), because they know that speaking contrary to what the voters want to hear will force voters to lose faith in the politician. In the process of self-defense, the politicians goes ahead to frame the topic of migration with an intention of benefiting from it, rather than addressing the issue in a genuine manner. The information changes the narrative and public attitude and discussion towards migrants, even when some people were already considering addressing the humanitarian needs of refugees.
Political orientation in media and journalism has also been studied as a tool for fostering anti-immigration attitudes and sentiments against asylum seekers. In a study carried out by Veeramoothoo (2022), the author found that political orientation in journalism impacted and determined public and political discussions about migrants. Right wing journalists spread positive news about migrants, while they counterparts from the left wing political divide tend to be conservative and against immigration depending on the benefits and risks associated with supporting asylum seekers. Cases of labelling migrants by their ethnic and geographical identities have also been considered as a narrative perpetuated by conservative media houses and journalists. For instance, the title “Haitian” places an ethnic tag on the individual and drives the “we” versus “them” narrative, making it difficult for the immigrant to fit in the host country.
There is a need for responsible journalism when it comes to capturing and disseminating information about migrants and asylum seekers. Biased reporting and favouritism driven by the Media Framing Theory is harmful to millions of people seeking to be accommodated in the US. Media houses and journalists have the power to influence public views and discussions for the benefit of migrants or to the detriment of asylum seekers. It is unfortunate that journalists have opted to drive the negative narrative by framing migrants as a threat to the security of the US, forcing policymakers to come up with comprehensive strategies to deal with Haitians fleeing their country due to violence. Media houses can alter the public notion and attitude by discussing positive aspects of migration such as cultural enhancement, job creation, and other aspects that will make the US environment less hostile to people seeking entry.
References
Conzo, Pierluigi et al. 2021. Negative media portrayals of immigrants increase in-group favouritism and hostile physiological and emotional reactions. Scientific Reports 11, no. 1, pp. 1-11.
Cooper, Glenda, Lindsey Blumell, and Mel Bunce. 2021. Beyond the ‘refugee crisis’: How the UK News Media Represent Asylum Seekers across National Boundaries. International Communication Gazette 83, no. 3, pp. 195-216.
Farris, Emily M., and Heather Silber Mohamed. 2018. Picturing Immigration: How the Media Criminalizes Immigrants. Politics, Groups, and Identities 6, no. 4, pp. 814-824. Web.
Scherman, Andres et al. 2021. The Influence of Media Coverage on the Negative Perception of Migrants in Chile. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 13. Web.
Stetka, Vaclav, Sabina Mihelj, and Fanni Toth. 2021. The Impact of News Consumption on Anti-Immigration Attitudes and Populist Party Support in a Changing Media Ecology. Political Communication 38, no. 5 pp. 539-560. Web.
Valente, Adriana, et al. 2021. Comparing Liberal and Conservative Newspapers: Diverging Narratives in Representing Migrants?.” Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies. 2021, pp. 1-17.
Veeramoothoo, Saveena. 2022. Social Justice and the Portrayal of Migrants in International Organization for Migration’s World Migration Reports. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 52, no. 1, pp. 57-93.
Villareal, Alexandra. 2022. ‘Sleeping in the Dust’: Migrants Face Harsh Conditions In Del Rio As 5,000 Remain. The Guardian. Web.