So it should come as no surprise that National Union of Journalists General Secretary Jeremy Dear called on fellow professionals to exorcise the demons that exist within the reporting of asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants. In a letter to journalists earlier this year Dear said: “The media plays a key role in how refugees and asylum seekers are perceived and, ultimately, how they are treated by the public at large.”

The Union’s Code of Conduct, a “rulebook” designed to ensure ethical journalism is practiced by its members, has recently included a Conscience Clause in a bid to “nail asylum myths” by placing accurate reportage in the public domain.

So why is this an issue? And is there really a problem? The Information Centre about Asylum and Refugees in the UK certainly thinks so. The academic research group, which is based at London’s City University in England, has been highly critical of the British press for its sometimes “lazy” reporting of issues such as immigration, born perhaps of the continuing expansion of the European Union and the tens of thousands of annual applications for asylum in the UK.

Its research, which was carried out between January and March 2005, found inaccurate terms were used in a cross-section of (mainly national) newspapers. In particular, it found that the interchangeable use of terms with different meanings (e.g. “refugee”, “asylum seeker”, “failed asylum seeker” and “migrant”) that could be seen as “a reflection of the fact that global migration processes are complex and it is not always easy to distinguish between forced and more voluntary movements”.

However, in some reporting there was evidence of lazy journalism and a lack of understanding of the legal framework governing asylum applications. That phrases “asylum seeker”, “migrant” and “refugee” have been deployed in an apparent haphazard way surely contradicts the essence of journalism and the NUJ — that of clear, accurate and honest reporting.

A pamphlet issued in January to members of the NUJ provided a bitesize guide in defining these complicated and baggage-laden terms. In particular, attention was drawn to the erroneous description of an “illegal” asylum seeker, owing to the fundamental human right that, under international law, everyone is permitted to request asylum from his or her own country.

So why are these descriptions lazily employed in the first place? It could be argued that readers sympathetic to Enoch Powell’s notion of “floodgates Britain” may seek solace in a press that adheres to similar viewpoints. However, it is possible the more potent cause is subconscious reporting, where stereotypes are naturalised rather than challenged.

The Hutton Inquiry into the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly and the “sexed-up” Iraq dossier revealed a dispatch from then Today programme editor Kevin Marsh, who criticised his BBC colleague Andrew Gilligan’s use of “loose” language. With this in mind, it is little wonder that many have flagged up the “crisis of trust” in British journalism in recent years.

The NUJ’s attempt to help reclaim and safeguard that trust, through sensible handling of asylum issues and working with the UN Refugee Agency London, should therefore be seen as a step in the right direction.

UK journalist Ryan Hooper can be reached at rjhooper@hotmail.co.uk.

Home

NUJ General Secretary Jeremy Dear sent members a fact sheet with key definitions and terminology about asylum, immigration and refugees in the hope it will reduce misleading copy.

In a letter to members, Dear said: “The media plays a key role in how refugees and asylum seekers are perceived and, ultimately, how they are treated by the public at large.

“The NUJ is only too aware that inaccurate, sensationalist and inflammatory stories harm community relations and can lead to violent attacks against some of the most vulnerable people in society.”

The plea comes after attacks on immigrant workers in the UK. In January, a 39-year-old Polish worker living in Birmingham was beaten up and had paint poured over his face to create a suffocating ‘mask’.

Two weeks later, vandals daubed racist graffiti on a house belonging to a Polish couple in Shrewsbury, before setting it on fire.

In March, the Coventry Telegraph revealed that half of the 3,000 asylum seekers and refugees living in the city had no basic health care, and had “slipped the net”.

Dear’s call for accurate and sensitive reporting has been welcomed by Bemma Donkoh, the UK representative of the UN Refugee Council (London).

She said: “Balanced and well-informed media coverage of refugee issues gives readers impartial and considered access to sides of the story often lost or misrepresented.

“In recent years, strides have been made to address the danger that inaccurate, misleading or distorted reporting may generate an atmosphere of fear and hostility that is not borne out of facts.”

The NUJ guide [PDF file] defines baggage-laden terms such as “refugee” and explains the difference between “illegal immigrants” and “irregular immigrants”, and offers advice when interviewing such sources.

Ryan Hooper is a UK journalist. He can be reached at rjhooper@hotmail.co.uk

Home

Discussion forums and online polls mostly say the media was right to agree to the embargo. There is also anger against the American Drudge Report and the Australian New Idea.

The Daily Mail, Sun, and News of the World posted online polls on the topic, while the BBC ran a message board with the question: ‘Should the British media have agreed to a black-out of the news that Prince Harry was serving in Afghanistan?’

Ninety-one per cent of those polled on the Daily Mail felt the media was right to keep Harry’s secret. So did 90 per cent on the Sun.

On the News of the World, there was 90 per cent support.

On Guardian Online, while many criticised Harry for going to war, roughly 80 per cent were happy with the media blackout.

The BBC’s message board received more than 270 responses, of which an estimated 80 per cent were supportive of the media. Also debated was the question whether Harry is a hero or a liability to international relations.

“To talk about the media,” reads a response, “is missing the main question of what on earth a member of the royal family is doing out there in the first place?”

Mirror readers debated the justification for British troops in Afghanistan. One reader wrote, “No one should get killed over another’s beliefs.”

The legitimacy of war was debated on the Independent‘s not-so-vibrant discussion board as well.

The Times attracted 219 comments, mostly angry at the Drudge Report, praising Harry and also critical of the media attention to royals.

“[This is] a wake up call to newspaper editors that nobody cares…” said one. “I certainly didn’t notice that for 10 weeks I haven’t seen an article or a picture on Harry falling out of Boujis.”

Most people showed no tolerance for anti-embargo stands. Channel 4 presenter Jon Snow, who thanked God for Matt Drudge, came under fire. “Jon Snow in one absolutely idiotic, thoughtless, stupid statement has just lost C4News one viewer,” said a response.

A minority, however, supported Snow. “I think in fact he was making a valuable point missed elsewhere,” wrote one from this camp. “[I]n a democratic society accommodations made by the media (even if it is to protect a Prince) are the start of a very dangerous and slippery road to
censorship.”

More expressive were the comments about the Drudge Report. “This website should be closed down NOW!!” wrote a Sun reader. “One small minded, idiot of a journalist has now put the lives of UK forces in danger. If anyone dies out there now, he/she should be tried for murder.”

A marginal section felt the embargo breach was a PR stunt to arrest the decreasing public support for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jameela Oberman is a writer at Interjunction.

Home