This is the general image portrayed in the British Media Coverage.
Throughout the Daily Mail article, “£16,000 – That’s what the average asylum seeker family gets a year in handouts (and it’s all tax free!)” a use of negative language was used to portray asylum seekers as “illegal cheats”.
“…getting more than…it was revealed yesterday,”
‘More than’ implies, again, a huge sum of money that the government are just willing to give away and ‘handouts’ is repeated often to make an impact on the reader. Another word used to represent a negative image of asylum seekers was ‘revealed’. This gives the impression that the asylum problem was a secret and suggests the government are now ashamed it’s all been made public [scandal]. “Startling government figures show that…” This ‘statistic’ was un-sourced and inadequately explained. The journalist showed no evidence of where they got their information from but we are lead to believe that a great investigation was researching the implied ‘scandal’. ‘Startling’ makes a dramatic representation to the reader and has connotations of shock, disbelief and surprise.
The presentation of the article was also effective. A big, bold £16,000 was the main title which the journalist wants the reader to notice is the important detail and a short sentence beneath the title [still in bold] also grabs attention.
“Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said…” and “the MP’s said…” are both evidence to show that quotations rely heavily on politicians and official figures, not the asylum seekers themselves. This illustrates a biased report showing refugees who are trying to seek asylum in the UK as simply seeking large handouts that the government are giving them.
The article in the Daily Mail highlights the asylum problem and the huge amounts of people who are trying to claim benefits. The story also states the problems such as refugees refusing free flights home and the governments struggle to deport large numbers of failed asylum seekers. An ‘average’ refugee is represented as a person who would leave their children and family to scrounge together all the cash they could and abandon their loved ones.
Another example of negative language is displayed in the Daily Express article, “50,000 bogus asylum seekers to stay.” Terms like “Britain, a magnet, for refugees” and “illegal” portray an image of criminals persisting to get into “our” country. As in the Daily Mail article, quotes were not from asylum seekers themselves but politicians and the government. The journalist’s use of pyramid writing gets all the negative information crammed into the first paragraph, the section everyone reads first. “An amnesty allowing up to 50,000 asylum seekers to stay in Britain, even though most are living here illegally, was greeted with fury last night.” The second paragraph the follows after stating; “Critics warned that the public would be appalled by the controversial move, which would make Britain ‘a magnet’ for refugees”.
The Daily Express article outlines more asylum seeker problems. The story explains the crisis as 15,000 refugee families are allowed to stay here illegally and the government warn it could encourage more refugees to stay here. They warn of problems such as Britain becoming over crowded and the fact some refugees won’t return home of their own free will, [although this is very expensive, the government encourage them to fly home.] The use of pictures, images and cartoons create the assumption most asylum seekers are illegal and here because of greed. The cartoon in the Express article is expressing that the majority of refugees claiming asylum are waiting so long ‘they forgot where they sought asylum from’. Asylum seekers are represented to the public as ‘pests’ that are lingering around in Britain for as long as possible without paying money.
It makes no sense that Britain needs more workers but is turning away these thousands of innocent people requiring jobs because of negative representations in the British media.
However, not all media shows a negative and stereotypical representation of asylum seekers. An example of just how helpless and innocent these refugees are was found in G Reality: “Because she’s an asylum seeker”. A complete contrast to the other two articles we’ve studied, this article offers a more warming representation of asylum seekers. It gives a chance for an asylum seeking family to express their side of life without the negative labels and terms that are usually featured in asylum articles. This story explains the tragic and unfortunate events that happened as a result of claiming asylum in Britain.
The appearance of the article even put asylum seekers in a new light. It plays on stereotype and the black font suggests fear and menace to the reader. The picture on the front is of the two refugees positioned outside with an image of their accommodation in the background. Love is evident in the picture but the expressions show the reader they are clearly unhappy. The building behind shows it’s cramped, impersonal and reminds us of exploitation by landlords. Contrastive conjunctions such as ‘shabby’, ‘crammed’ and ‘tiny’ are used to describe their home and the article focuses on challenging normal representations. “With a baby on the way” and “treating patients in a thriving local practice” have connotations of caring, loving people and the audience will start to become more sympathetic with the new positive light being shown.
The article examines the treatment of refugees in the UK and reveals how brutal assaults were the result of racial discrimination.
The media should seek to portray asylum seekers and refugees in less stereotypical ways, in particular by including more images of women and children in their reports. ‘Handouts’ should be replaced by ‘benefits’ and more quotes from refugees themselves instead of endless statements from politicians and un-sourced government figures. It’s offensive and insulting to asylum seekers. Pictures of women and children represent caring people and also show the articles like the Mail and the Express in a negative light. Language like ‘everything seemed perfect’ and ‘her typical day would involve treating patients’ help the audience to sympathise with the people whereas in the Mail, it gives the impression we are superior against refugees.
Emma Orvis 9G
