jounalism and immigration

« A desperate, opportunist press and vicious politicians: no wonder the debate on refugees is so awful” Jane Martinson, Guardian, 30th August 2025 intro Immigration debates are rarely about facts alone, they are shaped by emotions, fears, and above all by the way the media chooses to frame reality, as shown by Chris Haynes, Jennifer Merolla and S.

Karthick Ramakrishnan in Framing Immigrants.

Indeed, different media frames, whether emphasizing threat, policy or human stories, can significantly shape public attitudes and political preferences, regardless of the objective data.

In the case of immigration, media framing can thus transform a humanitarian question into a perceived security threat. article presentation The article I am going to analyse is an opinion piece entitled “A desperate, opportunist press and vicious politicians: no wonder the debate on refugees is so awful”, written by Jane Martinson and published in The Guardian on August 30th, 2025.

The Guardian is a British centre-left newspaper, known for its progressive stance and its commitment to liberal values. In this opinion piece, Martinson denounces the toxic media and political environment surrounding the debate on refugees in the UK.

She argues that rightwing newspapers, competing for attention and declining audiences, increasingly frame migrants as a threat to local populations. lecture I will now read a short passage that illustrates Jane Martinson’s criticism of the media’s treatment of populist figures, and her concern about the lack of ethical scrutiny in contemporary journalism. = from line 7 to 17 Anti-migrant papers such as the Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Telegraph have, predictably, delivered most of the 1,571 stories mentioning “migrant” and “hotel” over the past month, but according to the media archive site Nexis, reporting about the issue has shifted in many other parts of the media.

The plight of refugees is now consistently framed as a threat to “locals”, with even the broadsheet Times reporting a court case citing legal obligations under the inflammatory print headline: “Hotel migrant rights outweigh those of locals, ministers argue”. Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, tells me of toxic coverage with real-life consequences.

“The mainstream media and political opinion is in a very different place than it was a year ago.

Now there’s an idea that everyone coming here is a potential sexual predator, a potential criminal.” synthèse Jane Martinson’s article offers a strongly critical analysis of the contemporary British debate on refugees, which she presents as both a media failure and a political failure.

Rather than treating immigration as a complex social, legal and humanitarian issue, the British press, according to Martinson, has increasingly framed it as a threat, thereby distorting public debate and legitimising populist rhetoric. (= A securitised and hostile media framing of refugees) One of the central arguments developed by Jane Martinson concerns the way refugees and asylum seekers are framed in the British media.

Anti-migrant tabloids such as The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Express and The Telegraph have dominated the news agenda, producing an overwhelming number of articles that associate migrants with scandal, disorder and danger, for instance bc of “teaching hobbies to asylum seekers.” (line 4) However, Martinson insists that this framing is no longer confined to sensationalist tabloids. What is particularly alarming, in her view, is the diffusion of this rhetoric into more respected broadsheets like The Times. Furthermore, the rise of new ways of communicating like social media constitutes a threat to traditional media, additioning to a context of “ falling newspaper circulations”, hence this treatment of immigration, used to boost sales. As a result, refugees are consistently portrayed through a security lens.

Migrants are implicitly or explicitly associated with criminality, sexual violence and insecurity.

Martinson, by quoting Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, emphasises that such representations are not merely rhetorical but have real-life consequences, contributing to hostility, fear and potential violence against refugees. (= The “vicious circle” between sensationalist media and opportunist politicians + marginalisation of alternative voices and rational perspectives) Another key theme of the article is the symbiotic relationship between the media and political actors.

The journalist describes what she calls a “vicious circle” in which sensationalist journalism and political opportunism mutually reinforce one another.

On the one hand, newspapers amplify outrage and controversy to attract readers and survive in a context of declining circulation.

On the other hand, politicians exploit this media environment to gain visibility and legitimacy. At the centre of this circle stands Nigel Farage, whom Martinson depicts as a master of media exploitation who manages to dominate headlines, with the conspicuous support of rightwing media outlets. Figures such as Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch are also presented as actively participating in this dynamic : political communication becomes performative with inflammatory statements, rather than engaging in debate with sufficient critical distance. She highlights the relative invisibility of alternative perspectives.

A few outlets, such as the leftwing Mirror or the economically focused Financial Times, attempt to challenge the prevailing discourse.

However, these voices struggle to break through the noise.

Their arguments lack the emotional charge that drives clicks and headlines, and they are therefore marginalised in a media ecosystem dominated by outrage-driven content.

According to Martinson, this imbalance severely weakens democratic debate. (= A broader ethical indictment of contemporary journalism) Beyond the specific issue of refugees, Martinson’s article constitutes a broader critique of contemporary journalism.

The refugee debate thus becomes a revealing case study of a deeper crisis affecting the media’s democratic mission. As an opinion piece, the article is openly biased, but this bias is deliberate and functions as a rhetorical strategy rather than a flaw, allowing the author to make a clear normative argument. Ironic and hyperbolic terms expose the absurdity of sensationalist coverage.

The article is structured around clear oppositions, notably between the rightwing press and dissenting outlets and between emotional populism and economic rationality.

The tone is openly biased, indignant and normative, as Martinson calls for a moral reform of journalism. Transition Through this article, Jane Martinson portrays the refugee debate as the product of a media–political ecosystem driven by fear, outrage and opportunism, raising fundamental questions about the future of democratic discourse in the UK.

The issues raised by Martinson resonate with broader contemporary debates, from the UK’s Rwanda deportation plan to similar media dynamics observed in other European countries. Commentaire Problematic Does the media reflect public opinion on refugees or does it shape it, and can journalism still act as an “honest broker” in today’s society? I/ Immigration in the UK : a historical and political fault line Before analysing the media discourse (which is criticised by Jane Martinson in the article), it is essential to situate the refugee debate within the long and conflictual history of immigration in the UK. A/ A long-standing ambivalence towards immigration Immigration has been a structural feature of British history, particularly since 1945.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, the UK actively encouraged immigration from the Commonwealth to rebuild the economy.

The Windrush generation symbolises this period, when migrants were officially welcomed as workers and citizens. However, this openness was never unconditional.

Immigration has consistently been accompanied by fear of cultural dilution, economic competition and social disorder.

This historical ambivalence explains why migration repeatedly re-emerges as a political fault line. Martinson implicitly refers to this legacy when she suggests that the current hostility is not new but rather reactivated and amplified by contemporary media dynamics. B/ Current relevance: the Rwanda plan as a paradigm shift This historical tension finds a striking contemporary illustration in the Rwanda plan, which proposes deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda in order to deter future arrivals. Martinson’s article resonates strongly with this policy, which marks a shift from protection to deterrence.

As she notes, refugees are no longer framed as individuals seeking safety, but as a collective problem to be managed or displaced. This policy exposes two opposing worldviews: -​ a conservative logic, prioritising border control, national sovereignty and deterrence -​ a liberal logic, grounded in human rights, international law and asylum obligations Although Martinson does not explicitly use academic terminology, her critique points towards systemic racism, understood as discrimination embedded in institutions and policies rather than individual intent.

By repeatedly framing migrants as threats, the media contributes to legitimising policies that disproportionately target racialised populations. The Rwanda.... »