We need to tell more nuanced stories about refugees

In February, we held a joint event with ODI Global, bringing together journalists and activists to probe deeper into the media’s coverage of migration and refugees. The event was titled Migration – is the media getting it right? Henry Roberts concludes that there are some key lessons for all of us. 

There was one overriding point of consensus that emerged from the discussion: journalists need to tell more nuanced stories. Even well-meaning reporters often frame refugees the way they want to see them. 

The media should do more to reflect a diversity of refugee voices in their reporting, the panellists and the audience concluded. The public has an image of ‘the refugee’ that has been stereotyped and perpetuated across media platforms. That needs to be challenged. 

Journalists often have a narrow view of who refugees are and what they might look like. Reporters portray the “vulnerable migrant” or the “deserving migrant”, ignoring the true diversity of migrants and refugees. As a result, refugees are continually portrayed without agency, or as either the victims or perpetrators of crime.

Nazek Ramadan, one of the panelists and founder of Migrant Voice, said that stories about refugees are too  often connected to pity and vulnerability. 

Ramadan shared the example of a “respectable, reputable media organisation” looking to speak to Romanian and Bulgarians via Migrant Voice. But when Ramadan offered them “a housing officer, an academic, a dentist,” the journalist asked whether they could offer someone instead who was a care worker or a cleaner. 

This preconceived narrative so often goes unchallenged and sustains the stereotypical image of the refugee. 

Human-led storytelling often ignores the wider context

When refugees are represented in the media, they frequently feature in human-led stories, emphasising the emotional narrative behind their journeys. 

As an audience member from ODI commented, these human stories often minimise the legal framework behind refugee journeys: the cost of visas, or the fact that not everybody can even apply for a visa to enter Britain. 

This last point is particularly salient, as so much media coverage in this country concerns “small boats” and the “small boat crisis”, without giving a full rundown of the facts. Jessica Hagen-Zanker, Head Migration and Displacement Hub at ODI, raised that data is often misinterpreted or misused by the media: “In fact, migrants arriving on small boats only account for about 5% per year, but by always referring to absolute numbers the media are making these flows look much bigger than they are.”

This very topic was discussed on the BBC’s Question Time the evening of the IBT/ODI event. As George Monbiot said on that panel, unless you’re from a small number of countries like Ukraine, most people are unable to claim asylum in Britain until they reach British shores. You cannot seek a visa in your home country on the basis of applying for asylum “There is not actually a formal route you can take that would satisfy the government,” he said. “It’s a perfect catch-22.” 

We’ve seen this happen in the weeks after the fall of Assad in Syria, with the UK and other European states blocking the asylum claims of Syrians. As an audience member at the IBT/ODI event commented, we saw that sympathetic coverage of refugees is possible after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Why is the same sympathy not extended to those from countries like Syria? 

Journalists and NGOs need to be more careful about the language they use  

There is plenty of anti-refugee rhetoric out there. Referring to “swarms” and “invasions” of people from overseas reaching British shores – whether by far-right politicians or the right-wing press – clearly frames the story in a negative light. 

But as an audience member from the Migrants’ Rights Network reminded the room, even those of us supportive of refugees need to consider our language and be mindful not to perpetuate stereotypes or other discriminatory assumptions when we talk about them. 

Both the EU and the UN have argued that we should abandon the phrase “illegal migrants” as it places blame on those who are moving and not on the countries they are fleeing.   

Yet even ostensibly positive media coverage of refugees employs language that other campaigners (for instance, disability campaigners) have urged us to abandon. For example, by emphasising the contributions and hard-working ethos of refugees unwittingly ignores refugees who may not easily fit into those categories. As the Migrants’ Rights Network say, stigma around disability means many migrants fear how their disability may affect their application or visa extension.

Channel 4’s reality show divided opinion

The IBT/ODI event was held soon after the release of Channel 4’s controversial reality show, Go Back to Where You Came From. The programme’s executive producer, Emma Young, was on the panel and defended the programme, arguing that we have to be realistic about where audiences are and what they watch. There are plenty of great documentaries on the subject, but these don’t reach the same audience reach as mainstream entertainment formats.

Unsurprisingly, the programme was a source of contention in the room and helped form a larger debate: is it right to use refugee journeys as entertainment?

Several people spoke out against the programme, insisting that the real peril of being a refugee cannot be reproduced in a television format, which had 24/7 security accompaniment. Moreover, many felt that the programme failed to give viewers proper context, focusing instead on the emotional journey of six Britons over the real lives of refugees.

As my colleague, Gareth Benest, has argued, as uncomfortable as much of the programme is, public service broadcasters like Channel 4 have a duty to inform and entertain. One of Channel 4’s mission statements is to “create change through entertainment.” When the original Australian programme aired in 2011, SBS (an Australian public broadcaster) held a televised forum for viewers to express their views and debate the merits of the programme. 

If Channel 4 were to do something like that, the programme wouldn’t live in isolation as an entertainment format but could help prompt real discussion among Britons of every opinion.

IBT members can watch the recording on the members’ area of the website.