There
is little doubt that immigration was the key factor that swung the
referendum for Brexit. It is the issue that has been at or near the
top of “what concerns voters” polls over the past few years. So
it is to be expected that newspapers should focus on the subject: to
examine the plight of people in Syria abandoning their homes because
of a war for which Britain was in part to blame; to scrutinise the
EU’s freedom of movement ethos; to look at the Jungle in Calais; to
assess the cultural impact of the many thousands of foreigners who
choose to settle in Britain; to consider border security and
terrorism. These are all legitimate subjects. They are also separate
subjects, even though some are linked.
Yet
tabloid readers could be excused for thinking that “immigrants”,
“Eastern Europeans”, “illegals”, “asylum seekers”,
“refugees” and “Muslims” are one amorphous, undesirable, mass
– “millions” of people whose one objective is to come to
Britain and steal our country.
The
obsession has reached such a pitch that the Sun’s first instinct
when five young men drowned off Camber Sands last month was that they
might be illegal immigrants – they were not white and had been
wearing shorts. They turned out to be five friends on a day trip from
London.
For
the past six years, the volume of invective against Johnny Foreigner
has been turned up to the point where it has become almost
unbearable. The only pause in the cacophony came just over a year ago
with the appearance of a photograph of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi’s
body washed up on a Turkish beach. He had drowned, along with his
mother and brother, within five minutes of setting sail for Europe in
a little dinghy.
Suddenly
the snarling was replaced with compassion. Suddenly the “cockroach”
was a child.
Newspapers
not known for their sympathy for refugees or their dangerous voyages
across the Mediterranean demanded action.
The
Sun launched an appeal and within two days was hailing its readers as
heroes for raising £350,000 to help children like Aylan; families
put up their hands to offer foster homes to the young refugees. David
Cameron, who two days earlier had said that Europe’s migration
crisis would not be solved “by taking more and more refugees”,
apparently promised to admit thousands, prompting headlines such as
“Britain opens its arms to refugees”. Fifteen, twenty thousand
people would be admitted to Britain, foreign aid money would be
diverted to help asylum seekers, “Refugees welcome” banners
appeared across the country.
But
then there was a new season of Strictly and The X Factor - and the
tabloids lost interest. By the end of the following week, Cameron had
ordered a drone to kill a pair of Britons fighting as jihadis in
Syria and the Queen had become the country’s longest reigning
monarch. Who had time for the boat people now?
The
Daily Mirror, the one paper that has shunned front-page stories about
migration, broke step for three days to cover the Kurdi story and the
deaths of four more refugee babies two weeks later. It had not led on
any aspect of migration in the previous eight months and has not
returned to it since.
The
Daily Express did not break step – or publish the Aylan photograph.
Instead it spent a couple of days berating the EU for the human
catastrophe unfolding on its borders before resuming normal service
with a diabetes breakthrough.
Against
the Mirror’s three migration splashes last year and this, the
Express has managed more than 90.
The
fifteen or twenty thousand have not, of course, reached our shores.
By the end of June, 2,659 had been admitted – against 19,000 taken
in by Germany and 26,000 by Canada. The National Audit Office
reported earlier this month that 113 councils had pledged to resettle
refugees, but that the programme was being put at risk by a shortage
of school places and housing.
In
April, Cameron was also denying entry to 3,000 unaccompanied children
on the grounds that they were already “safe” in Europe. For this
he was taken to task by the Daily Mail, which has the sophistication
to differentiate between the vulnerable and those it deems to be
unworthy. It also has the chutzpah to take credit where it may not be
due and so when Cameron did an about-turn, the paper that vilifies
economic migrants and foreign nurses hailed its “victory for
compassion”.
The
three thousand haven’t got here either.
If
newspapers like the Mail believe that their headlines influence
politicians, do they not consider that they might also affect the
behaviour of readers?
Last
month, Arkadiusz Jozwik died in an street attack in Harlow, Essex.
Witnesses said he had been targeted because he was speaking Polish.
The Sun splashed on the killing - and then, without a hint of irony
or self-awareness, published a story on page 2 about hundreds of
thousands of “hidden” EU migrants.
So
on page 1, the paper mourns a family man who came to Britain thanks
to his homeland’s membership of the EU, and on the very next page
it decries the fact that anyone should be able to enter the country
on those terms.
Then,
a little further back, a spread likened the Calais Jungle to a
festival site with its “booming micro-economy”, including
restaurants, shops, musical halls, a nightclub and a boxing gym. An
accompanying single - or small news item - said that one “illegal”
is stopped every hour in the UK.
The
paper might rightly argue that once here, anyone should be safe from
murderous gangs, but might it not also pause to consider whether the
rhetoric coming from Fleet Street is inflaming the situation?
The
Leave campaign and its newspaper supporters made great play of how
leaving the community would give Britain back control of immigration
- and that seems to have convinced a certain section of society that
the moment the votes were counted, all foreigners would be put on the
next boat and that any who remained were fair game.
There
has been strong evidence of a rise in racist or “hate” crimes
since the vote – a fact reported by the Sun on June 28 in a spread
headlined “Racists shame Britain”. Before that, the paper had
printed 120 news reports and opinion pieces about migration this
year, almost all of them negative.
For
the Daily Express, all foreigners are a problem and everything is
Europe’s fault. From the day Cameron became Prime Minister in 2010
up to last Saturday - September 10 - the paper had splashed on
migration issues on 180 occasions, with a marked acceleration after
the autumn of 2013, when Romanians and Bulgarians were about to be
given full access to the UK. And that’s not taking into account all
the puffs at the top of the page when advice on living longer or
rising house prices take centre stage. By last weekend the paper’s
tally for 2016 stood at 51 splashes, 18 puffs, 51 op-ed columns, 116
leaders and countless inside stories. All that in just 216 papers.
Why?
The paper has yet to respond to requests for a comment, but it may be
supposed that if one were forthcoming, the answer would be “because
it is what most concerns readers”.
In
that it would have corroboration from Ipsos-Mori’s monthly “issues”
polls. Since that 2010 election, immigration has regularly emerged as
the subject most frequently mentioned by voters.
Fair
enough, but another such topic is the health service and yet -
miracle cures apart - the state of the NHS has bothered the Express’s
splash headline writers on only a handful of occasions over the past
six years and not once this year. [The Mail, which - with 122 - comes
second to the Express on the number of migration splashes since May
2010, is constantly on the case of the NHS, GPs and junior doctors.]
Editors
may argue that they have a duty to reflect public concern, hold
authorities to account and inform the people. Others contend that
they are feeding the fear with their constant stream of venom and
bile.
While
Press freedom is an essential element of democracy, there is a
groundswell of opinion that some mechanism needs to be found that can
both protect that and stop the dangerous drip-feed of negative
headlines.
CitizensUK,
which seeks to help to settle immigrants into the community, is
particularly concerned about Britain’s slowness in helping
refugees, and about the recent rise in “hate” crime.
It
marked the anniversary of Aylan Kurdi’s death with a “memorial”
outside the Home Office. Here, it urged politicians and officials to
act speedily to admit 178 children who have an absolute right to come
to Britain because they are alone and have family here, plus a
further 209 with “valid claims for protection”. Then, last
weekend it hosted a “Refugees welcome” summit in Birmingham at
which hundreds of people considered practical initiatives to help
refugees and counter negative attitudes. One affiliated group has
approached the Press regulator Ipso for a meeting to discuss how to
persuade newspapers to tone down their language.
Asked
if there were any way that it could tackle the cumulative effect of
stories that might not individually contravene the editors’ code,
Ipso’s director of external affairs Niall Duffy confirmed that the
regulator considered stories only on a case-by-case basis. But he
pointed out that it did have the power to instigate an investigation
of its own, without any complaint, if it considered the issue serious
enough.
The
signs are not auspicious, however, given the ruling that Katie
Hopkins’s notorious “cockroach” column did not breach its
guidelines on discrimination - a decision reached in the face of an
appeal from the UN’s Human Rights Commissioner for the UK to tackle
“tabloid hate speech”.
There
are those who believe that Ipso cannot be an effective regulator
because it is still in the pay of the big newspaper publishers. But,
where immigration coverage is concerned, there is little sign of
anything different from the putative rival regulator, Impress, which
has a remarkably similar draft code of conduct.
Another
approach is to try to convince advertisers not to spend with
newspapers that demonise foreigners. Step forward Richard Wilson.
Sixteen
years ago, Wilson’s sister died in a massacre in Burundi. A Daily
Mail reporter who approached his mother for her story was gently
shown the door because, she said, she had lost count of the number of
newspaper articles - many in the Mail – that portrayed refugees as
liars, cheats and frauds.
Katie
Hopkins’s notorious Sun column struck a chord with Wilson because
it had the same “cockroaches” simile that had been used to
justify the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.
The
combination of his mother’s example, that column and this summer’s
tide of anti-immigration coverage spurred Wilson to set up a Facebook
page - Stop Funding Hate - and a petition aimed at persuading Virgin
to stop advertising in the Express, Mail and Sun. The Facebook page
has had more than five million views, attracted 80,000 “likes”
and the petition has nearly 42,000 signatures.
Wilson
says: “Our aim is to shift the balance of incentives so that
running hate campaigns costs newspapers more money through lost
advertising than it makes them in sales. We hope that this will
contribute to a long-term improvement in the quality and tone of Sun,
Mail and Express coverage.
“Obviously
the first company that does pull their advertising will be showing
that they’re ahead of the curve in responding to the deep public
concern.”
The
essence of an independent Press is that it shouldn’t be influenced
by people with power or money in their pockets, so do we really want
advertisers dictating or censoring editorial content?
Wilson
says: “Writing disproportionately negative stories about migrants
is currently a good way of selling papers. Advertisers benefit from
these headlines because they get a wider circulation for their
messages. We aren’t asking advertisers to lean on newspapers and
pressure them to change their content. We’re asking them to walk
away and stop making us complicit.”
Whether
writing nasty stories is a good way of selling papers is a moot point
– circulations haven’t exactly been rocketing. Papers enjoyed a
“Brexit spring” during the referendum campaign, but all those
“migrant” splashes over the past six years have coincided with a
decline in the Express’s circulation from 663,627 in May 2010 to
422,440 in July this year. There is no evidence that its anti-EU,
anti-immigration crusade has provided a buoy to prevent sales sinking
even further.
But
is it not reasonable for companies to decide that it’s not good for
their image to be associated with a particular brand or organisation?
The extreme example of this is the closure of the News of the World,
when advertisers deserted after the Milly Dowler phone-hacking story
broke. But if Rupert Murdoch hadn’t actually wanted to close the
NotW, he would have brazened it out.
The
campaigners are taking on hugely powerful players who can be
guaranteed to deploy heavy artillery if they feel their challengers
are gaining traction, so it’s not surprising that campaigners are
turning their attention first to the Express rather than Paul Dacre -
editor of the Daily Mail - or Murdoch.
But
they, and other like-minded groups, have some secret weapons in their
arsenals – and they are all trained on Richard Desmond. The opening
salvos have been fired. It’s war.
The
SubScribe blog has been monitoring front pages for some years and
it’s actually quite hard to determine what should be included in
the “migration” chart at the top of this spread. For a start, it
deals only with print editions. That is because these are what people
see in supermarkets or on television and so have a greater impact
than their circulations might imply.
There’s
a lot of moaning about foreign aid, benefits for expats and Muslims
who may not have integrated into UK society quite as the Mail or
Express might wish – last Saturday’s “fury” about policewomen
in burkas, for example. These are all excluded, as are terror-related
splashes. Migration to other countries is, however, included.
It
should also be pointed out that the “heavies” - the Telegraph in
particular - are perhaps under-represented, since they often have
immigration stories on their fronts, but these are included on the
#chartofshame only if they are the lead to the paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment