By Nicola Robbins
2025 has seen increased scrutiny towards those who communicate publicly on asylum-related issues and has, not without irony, even made UK headlines. However, although presented as ‘news’, how the media portray people on the move* is not a new topic; it has piqued interest in a range of academic fields globally for decades. This article emphasises why choice of language remains crucial in the context of asylum, in media reporting and beyond. With a spotlight on the UK, it presents the key findings, debates and gaps in knowledge in this area of research.
Why the media (still) matters
Despite continued scepticism about the media, it is important not to underestimate its power of influence. In the UK, although newspaper sales continue to decrease, social media enables more individuals to be exposed to and engage with ‘the news’ than ever before. This is significant, especially as the media remain a key source of public information on political topics like asylum. Not only is immigration a salient topic in the UK, but there is usually a focus on asylum over other forms of immigration. Often, people on the move garner a disproportionate amount of media coverage compared to their actual number. Also, the general population only ‘learn’ about asylum through ‘the news’; being unlikely to directly interact with anyone who has experienced it and being unlikely to personally experience (or worry about) it themselves.
Media portrayals, public perception and policymaking
There is generally a consensus that the impact and effect of mass media is significant, despite perspectives differing as to how, what, and why. In the asylum context, there is strong evidence of a relationship between media portrayal and policymaking. Researchers have identified connections between media portrayal, public perception and policymaking; however, establishing ‘who’ influences ‘who’ has been difficult. Many argue media portrayal sways public opinion, which in turn shapes policymaking. Some pose negative media portrayal of people on the move contributes to negative public attitudes towards issues pertaining to asylum. Another stance is that there is a more direct relationship between media portrayal and policymaking; with negative media portrayal of people on the move being used by policymakers to justify harsh asylum policy. It is also plausible that politics and policy might directly impact media discourse.
From a human rights perspective, playing ‘the blame game’ within this triangular quandary is less crucial than considering how to disrupt it. A recent UK study found that in the two years preceding the introduction of Nationality and Borders Bill 2021, news reports (at best) contributed to a socio-political environment in which increasingly restrictive asylum policy could be launched. Additionally, right-wing politicians and extremist activists have been accused of fuelling “racist rhetoric and demonising language” resulting in an increased threat of violence towards people on the move and those working directly with them.
Portraying ‘a problem’
The media has tended to portray people on the move in two distinct ways but with a singular negative outcome. Firstly, and predominantly, portraying them as ‘threats’ both literally e.g. as ‘a threat’ to public security e.g. and/ or conceptually e.g. as ‘a threat’ to national identity. Research has shown people on the move have been framed as ‘a drain on public resources’, ‘bogus’, ‘criminals’, ‘dangerous,’ ‘deviants,’ ‘illegal’, ‘unwanted invaders’ and ‘perpetrators of crisis’. Secondly, the media have framed people on the move as ‘victims’, framing them as either/ both ‘tragic’ and ‘vulnerable’. Some believe a ‘victim’ rhetoric has positive connotations (e.g. evoking sympathy) but it is not helpful; people on the move might be ‘tragic’, but they “remain unwanted” with an emphasis on difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’. The UK media has relied on this threat/ victim framing, portraying people on the move as ‘criminals’ or “feckless victims of smugglers”. Although this dichotomy portrays people on the move in contrasting ways, both ‘threat’ and ‘victim’ perpetuate the harmful narrative that people on the move are ‘a problem’.
A gendered lens
Although an increasing body of scholarship shows that displacement affects women differently there is a marked absence of research that explores whether media portrayal of people on the move is affected by gender. Research has shown the media perpetuates gender tropes and constructs “a composite, singular “Third World Woman”” who is regularly presented as a ‘victim’ alongside a discourse around needing to be ‘saved’. Women and children are regularly portrayed collectively, fuelling this image of vulnerability and disadvantage.
A couple of recent studies have applied a gendered lens when exploring how people on the move are portrayed by the UK media. Gender inequality was evidenced in UK asylum news reporting, with women being present in fewer articles overall. Gender made a stark difference in how the UK media portrayed so-called “channel migrants”. Whereas men tended to be portrayed as ‘threats’, women, when mentioned at all, were associated with passivity, tragedy, and dependence.
Different papers, same difference
More research is needed to determine whether publication type affects media portrayal of people on the move. One perspective is that tabloids frame people on the move more negatively than other publication types and with a focus on more sensationalist content. Yet, others argue portrayal techniques tend to vary between publication type more than the ensuing portrayals. Specifically in the UK, it may be that publication type makes minimal difference to the overall effect of how the media portray people on the move. Broadsheets (e.g. The Guardian) have been found to use similar language to tabloids (e.g. The Sun) and mid-markets (e.g. The Daily Mail) with tabloids perhaps just being more likely to incorporate the threat/ victim dichotomy more explicitly than broadsheets.
Rhetoric and the ‘real’ problem
Despite a few recent steps forward UK asylum reporting, people on the move continue to be vilified by the media and made “scapegoats for society’s current ills, or alleged ills”. Some groups of people on the move, such as women, remain particularly underrepresented in media output, despite making 50% of the world’s displaced population. Although this article shows critical media consumption is essential, it is with the caveat: this is not enough. Rhetoric is more than words alone and, as evident in the UK, the current hostile environment surrounding people on the move has not occurred in a vacuum. The fundamental issue is the real, distinct needs of people on the move globally continue to be unseen or misunderstood and this is having dire consequences, both at the individual and community level.
*In this article “people on the move” refers to any person/s who migrates to claim asylum. Whilst acknowledging this phraseology it is not without its own limitations, this is the author’s preferred way- at present- of avoiding language that is inherently politicised with divisive and dehumanising connotations.
Nicola Robbins is an Associate Researcher in the University of Sussex’s School of Law, Politics and Sociology and works on a collaborative project with the University of the West of England to help coordinate and develop Women in Refugee Law (WiRL), a global knowledge exchange network to improve the rights of refugee women. Nicola has a MA in Refugee Protection and Migration Studies from the University of London and is Deputy Chair of Kent Refugee Action Network. Bringing expertise from over 15 years of working as a communications professional and working directly with people on the move in the UK and abroad, Nicola is passionate about bringing people together to uphold refugee rights in law, policy, practice and daily life.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.