When journalists report on the refugee crisis, many chose to write about the refugees as a problem and use divisive language. Rather than discussing the crisis maturely, they provoke the readership with inflammatory language and opinions. This type of bias in the news divides the working class. It enables the white working class to feel righteous and superior to non-whites. The ‘weaker’ the target, the better, and who could be an easier target than the Syrian refugees? They are often portrayed as an invasive problem into our lives which will take things away from us (taxpayers money, NHS resources, jobs, education quality) and bring with them crime and…Muslims!
Do refugees deserve help?
Yes. The Syrian refugees are escaping the terror of ISIS, the dictatorship of President Assad and the Syrian Civil war. As Mo Ansar said, “we have more than enough room” in Europe.
UK media often demonise Muslims and immigrants. Technically, refugees could be categorised as immigrants and migrants, while immigrants and migrants cannot be refugees. All of these labels have become words associated with wrongdoing. But they only mean that someone has moved from one place on the Earth, to another, sometimes for safety and sometimes for better prospects. For example, Nigel Farage has campaigned against migrants entering the EU. Hypocritically, he is also planning to become an economic migrant.
The UN refugee agency said that many EU countries have ‘turn-your-back syndrome’, but this isn’t helpful or heroic. We are all bystanders to the mass death of the refugees fleeing conflict. We are greedily keeping our money and country for ourselves because of xenophobia. Many Europeans are afraid of refugees because of the articles on the crimes they commit, but all countries produce criminals.
Should we only accept women and children, for our own safety?
There is a presumption that because many of the refugees are male, they don’t deserve to seek refuge. Media depicting refugees as a problem choose photos of groups of males to back up the idea that they are an aggressive threat. Statistically, men commit significantly more violent and sexual crimes than women in every country, but not all men are violent or rapists.
It is unfair to judge all men based on the actions of a few. Is there an ingrained sexism in society that we believe that men are dangerous, while all women are trustworthy and innocent?
It seems that news stories showing empathy towards refugees often show pictures of women and children. Do we disregard the fact that women are also guilty of committing crimes? When fleeing from war, fathers, brothers and sons are not worthless. This article isn’t trying to condemn women and favour men, it’s trying to point out that we need to question why categories of people are demonised.
Manipulating the reader.
Everything we read is manipulated for a desired reaction. In one article, Katie Hopkins wrote about how the refugees were “appearing to laugh in the faces of the British taxpayer”. She combined this with photos of men who were smiling, with their thumbs up. At face-value, yes it does look like they’re laughing at us. This is a less obvious use of divisive language because we feel like we have come to this conclusion independently. If you consider that she might have used the photos out of context, maybe the men are just happy that somebody is finally helping them out of their horrible situation. They are probably about to have a better quality of life than they have ever experienced. Why is that a bad thing? Why should they suffer so that we can gain?
It takes me 2 weeks to see my own doctor! If we bring refugees into our communities, it will take even longer!
Some of the ‘patriotic’, white, working class want to protect what is theirs and bat away anybody trying to take it, therefore the working class is becoming divided into whites and non-whites.
David Cameron put it like this:
“I accept that, because you have got a swarm of people coming across the Mediterranean, seeking a better life, wanting to come to Britain because Britain has got jobs, it’s got a growing economy, it’s an incredible place to live”.
He got held accountable for describing the refugees as a ‘swarm’ which likens them to insects and invaders. But his statement also reveals an ‘us’ and ‘them’ stance. Divisive language can be masked through diplomatic language, but the statement could be interpreted like this: “Remember all these great things you deserve because you’re British? This foreign swarm is coming to take them!”
If you compare our greed and fear of change to the refugees’ desperation of protecting their children from death or traffickers, which situation would you rather be in? It feels like a playground full of bullies picking on those who are weaker. That makes us the bystanders.
British priorities.
When you read articles on the Daily Mail Online, they use divisive language which could be interpreted in a way that could incite racial hatred towards immigrants and Muslims. Yet bizarrely, as you are reading their angry article, along the right-hand side are endless links to articles about women on holiday or wearing little clothing, with photos showing almost naked women. This takes away the integrity of what they are writing about. How can they condemn people escaping hellish conditions and the threat of death, while praising the hedonistic superficiality of Western culture? They are literally praising attention-seeking, mindless celebrities for displaying their bodies. This reflects their opinion of what is ‘right’ and ‘accepted’. Yet they imply that all Muslims are scary because they could be extremists.
But of course, the owners of the papers are rich, white men with the ability to set agendas and frame news stories in a way that agrees with their personal political stance. The reader often takes what they say at face-value, believing that the writer is on their side. They don’t question the motives of the paper, or how they use their influence over the readership. The reader believes that the paper is sharing important information with them because they are on the same team.
Why do we trust the press?
We search for information that we agree with, and revel in the stupidity of those we disagree with, all because of our ego-centrism. The right-wing are so busy being furious with the refugees that they don’t consider who runs the paper, or what means they use to produce and spin stories. Any articles or language that condemns refugees feeds their hatred of them. The left-wing are so busy pointing out what is wrong in society that they use their morality to justify the hypocrisy of their actions.
Rupert Murdoch’s company, News Corporation, is international. Political figures in several countries need to use his news channels, websites and newspapers to spread their message. They need his funding and they want to be in his favour to avoid bad press. Bad press of certain politicians, over a long period of time, can sway the public vote.
This is how Murdoch still successfully runs his media empire. He is so powerful that even being responsible for the phone-hacking scandal had little effect on him. A scandal that included hacking voicemails of public figures to sell their secrets. The epitome of their wrongdoing was when a reporter hacked Milly Dowler‘s voicemail, causing police to believe that she was still alive and accessing her phone. The Leveson report also stated that reporters would hit the windscreen of Kate McCann‘s car, when she was taking the children to school, in order to get a photograph of her looking scared or angry.
The phone-hacking occurred as recently as 2005-2006. It reveals that some newspapers will use drastic means to increase revenue. Some journalists will employ immoral tactics just to get the reader to buy their paper. So when you next see a provocative, controversial headline, don’t fall for it. When the article uses divisive language, remember that you might not agree. Decide your own political views, rather than parroting the last opinion you read.
Leave a Reply