Study: media dehumanises immigrants, creates false crises

[cronus]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... immigrants

Study: media dehumanises immigrants, creates false crises

Negative portrayals of immigrants in the press are dehumanising and can engender the sense that that a social crisis is looming, if not already taking hold. This is the conclusion drawn in a paper published in the Journal of Social Issues, penned by a team of social psychologists in Canada, a place the authors say is generally "more positive than many other Western nations" when it comes to immigration. The conclusion comes just a month after a report by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford found that the portrayal of immigration in UK news is largely negative, with the term "illegal" most commonly used to describe immigrants in national papers, broadsheets and tabloids alike.

The Canadian study -- by professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario Victoria Esses, PhD student Stelian Medianu and Andrea Lawson of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto -- gives an overview of past research describing the media's implicit role in crafting national perceptions of immigrants, before highlighting three experiments carried out by the team designed to uncover the real effects of these negative portrayals. It paints a damning picture of a system that both "exacerbates" and "reflects" a level of uncertainty that exists in public opinion around the issue of immigration, taking advantage of that uncertainty by artificially elevating the topic to crisis-like levels to sell newspapers.

"Uncertainty can be used to the media's advantage, allowing the transformation of relatively mundane episodes into newsworthy events that can be sold to the public," Esses told Wired.co.uk. "Thus, the media take advantage of unease to create a state of crisis that will attract attention and help sell media products." Excellent examples of that skewed response occurred in Canadian media shortly after four boatloads of asylum-seekers from China landed off the west coast of British Columbia in 1999, and after a similar event in 2010 (this time with Tamil passengers onboard).

"These events could be interpreted in a variety of ways and elicit a variety of emotions," Esses explains to Wired.co.uk. "For example, one might feel empathy for the refugee claimants, considering that they have often spent a significant amount of time in very difficult conditions both before leaving their home countries and in transit to Canada. Thus, the media could highlight the plight of these individuals and induce empathy for them." That was, however, not the case.

In both instances the groups were painted in a negative light. In 1999, the incident was portrayed as a crisis despite the relatively small numbers involved, with terms such as "invasion" used to describe an influx of unwanted immigrants that may carry diseases or be potential terrorists. In 2010, the 492 Tamil passengers onboard the boats made up two percent of the total asylum claims that year, yet were branded as being bogus refugees wanting to take advantage of Canada's immigration system.

"Depictions of these refugee claimants have focused on the possibility that they are bringing communicable diseases into Canada, that they are queue-jumpers trying to take advantage of our 'lax refugee system,' and that they may be harbouring criminals and terrorists," says Esses.

(continued, you can learn a lot from books...)

[Seth]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... immigrants

Study: media dehumanises immigrants, creates false crises

Negative portrayals of immigrants in the press are dehumanising and can engender the sense that that a social crisis is looming, if not already taking hold. This is the conclusion drawn in a paper published in the Journal of Social Issues, penned by a team of social psychologists in Canada, a place the authors say is generally "more positive than many other Western nations" when it comes to immigration. The conclusion comes just a month after a report by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford found that the portrayal of immigration in UK news is largely negative, with the term "illegal" most commonly used to describe immigrants in national papers, broadsheets and tabloids alike.

Actually it's called "accuracy in reporting" because illegal immigrants are, well...illegal immigrants.

The Canadian study -- by professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario Victoria Esses, PhD student Stelian Medianu and Andrea Lawson of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto -- gives an overview of past research describing the media's implicit role in crafting national perceptions of immigrants, before highlighting three experiments carried out by the team designed to uncover the real effects of these negative portrayals. It paints a damning picture of a system that both "exacerbates" and "reflects" a level of uncertainty that exists in public opinion around the issue of immigration, taking advantage of that uncertainty by artificially elevating the topic to crisis-like levels to sell newspapers.

"Borderless" advocate claptrap. If you migrate from one nation to another and fail to abide by the laws of the nation you are migrating to you are doing so "illegally," and therefore you are an "illegal alien."

"Uncertainty can be used to the media's advantage, allowing the transformation of relatively mundane episodes into newsworthy events that can be sold to the public," Esses told Wired.co.uk. "Thus, the media take advantage of unease to create a state of crisis that will attract attention and help sell media products." Excellent examples of that skewed response occurred in Canadian media shortly after four boatloads of asylum-seekers from China landed off the west coast of British Columbia in 1999, and after a similar event in 2010 (this time with Tamil passengers onboard).

The news media has both a duty and a right to report on illegal immigration and it's actually ethically obligated to call it what it is.

"These events could be interpreted in a variety of ways and elicit a variety of emotions," Esses explains to Wired.co.uk. "For example, one might feel empathy for the refugee claimants, considering that they have often spent a significant amount of time in very difficult conditions both before leaving their home countries and in transit to Canada. Thus, the media could highlight the plight of these individuals and induce empathy for them." That was, however, not the case.

They aren't "refugees" unless and until they have been granted refugee status by the government. Until then they are "illegal aliens" who are fleeing a place they don't like as much as the place they are illegally immigrating to and nothing more. Nations are under no obligation to allow unfettered migration into their countries, even by those claiming they are "oppressed" in their homelands.

In both instances the groups were painted in a negative light. In 1999, the incident was portrayed as a crisis despite the relatively small numbers involved, with terms such as "invasion" used to describe an influx of unwanted immigrants that may carry diseases or be potential terrorists. In 2010, the 492 Tamil passengers onboard the boats made up two percent of the total asylum claims that year, yet were branded as being bogus refugees wanting to take advantage of Canada's immigration system.

Which they likely were. Until the government grants them refugee status, news organizations are perfectly entitled to call them illegal immigrants. Moreover, news organizations are not obliged to be neutral in their reportage. It's their printing press, so to speak, and they can take political positions if they choose to do so...and do so all the time.

"Depictions of these refugee claimants have focused on the possibility that they are bringing communicable diseases into Canada, that they are queue-jumpers trying to take advantage of our 'lax refugee system,' and that they may be harbouring criminals and terrorists," says Esses.

All of which is perfectly true.

[Warren Dew]

I think Scrumple is talking about the UK media. In the U.S., it's more like the media dehumanizes nonimmigrants.

[cronus]

I think Scrumple is talking about the UK media. In the U.S., it's more like the media dehumanizes nonimmigrants.

The media takes the angle likely to maximise the shitstorm - there's no story otherwise. It is the same everywhere. No troll could match a British journalist though once they've cornered you.

[Seth]

I think Scrumple is talking about the UK media. In the U.S., it's more like the media dehumanizes nonimmigrants.

The media takes the angle likely to maximise the shitstorm - there's no story otherwise. It is the same everywhere. No troll could match a British journalist though once they've cornered you.

True enough. Most people seem to misunderstand the business model of journalism, which is not that of providing objective reporting, it's that of selling ads in newspapers to make a profit.