Tabloid coverage of immigration: 'wilful misreporting, inflammatory language, lazy hostility'

Panorama reporter Paul Kenyon has written an article for the latest issue of British Journalism Review about media coverage of asylum and immigration. An abridged version appears in today's MediaGuardian.

Kenyon says:

the seemingly non-stop campaign against asylum- seekers, and the wilful misreporting of the issue among some tabloid newspapers, is getting worse.

'Wilful' is a strong allegation, but it's a fair one.

Important distinctions, such as that between asylum-seekers and economic migrants, are often fudged or overlooked; the language is inflammatory; there seems to be a lazy hostility towards them, implying a universal acceptance that what asylum -seekers represent, what they are, is wrong.

He also points out some of the specific problems with the coverage:

It is a perennial theme, repeated until it has become part of our national folklore.

The Sun's opinion column put it succinctly in April: 'Many asylum-seekers are no more than dole-scroungers.'

UK benefits are not what inspired the migrants I encountered. Although some were fleeing persecution, the vast majority were indeed economic migrants, but had no idea there was a state benefit system in the UK.

This latter view echoes Refugee Council research, published in January and ignored by the tabloid media (of course), that three-quarters of asylum seekers:

had no knowledge of welfare benefits and support before coming to the UK – most had no expectation they would be given financial support.

Having made four programmes over two years on the issue, he's probably met more asylum seekers and immigrants than, for example, the Mail's James Slack, who thinks immigration reporting consists of copying-and-pasting Migrationwatch press releases.

But the problem is, as Kenyon is all too aware:

Around 3 million people watched the four Panorama programmes I eventually made, more than the circulation of the Sun.

A newspaper journalist can exercise his line on the story every day. Our programmes were transmitted over two years.

The anti-immigration tabloids are read by millions of people who are fed a diet of this negative, hostile, misleading coverage on an almost daily basis. The effect is that these views dominate and poison the debate about immigration.

Another Migrationwatch press release gets the churnalism treatment

The appearance of a new Migrationwatch press release is the cause of celebration at certain newspapers, because it means they can produce a story that bashes immigrants without doing any actual journalism.

None of the churnalists writing about Migrationwatch's new figures - about the numbers of visas-leading-to-settlement granted under the new 'points based system' (PBS) - seem to have bothered to make even a cursory check that they're reliable.

Migrationwatch claims Labour's 'Tough' Points Based System Actually Increased Immigration.

The first set of figures they compare shows that the number of 'entry clearances' for skilled and highly skilled workers actually fell by over 23,000 over the period:


The next set of figures is for visa extensions, and this is where it starts to look a little shaky:


Since the PBS was only introduced in June 2008, there's no way there could be any tier 1 or 2 'visa extensions' in 2007. Unlike with the previous set of numbers, Migrationwatch do not find the 2007 'equivalents'.

This leaves a rather large hole in both their figures and their subsequent claims.

How can they realistically, and honestly, suggest the 2009 figures say anything about immigration trends when they fail to provide comparable numbers from previous years?

After all, visa extensions did exist in 2007 and were, in total, higher overall then than in 2009. Going to back to the official figures which Migrationwatch used shows this very clear decline:

• 2007 - 274,020
• 2008 - 267,865
• 2009 - 251,245

Migrationwatch also provide numbers for work permits (which dropped - 44,685 in 2007; 7,290 in 2009) and for dependents (which increased by 5,565).

Overall, going by page 33 of the official stats, the very page Migrationwatch uses, the grand total of entry clearance visas including dependents is down (2,072,430 in 2007 and 1,995,840 in 2009).

Yet in the certain categories they have selected, Migrationwatch have claimed there's been an increase of 20%:


But strip out the 86,000 from the 'visa extensions' - or find and add in the equivalent figures for work-permit holders who gained extensions in 2007 - and that increase looks rather less certain.

In any case, immigration suggests people coming in - certainly in the minds of the hacks who then wrote about these figures. Yet 'visa extensions' clearly suggests that these are people already here.

But that didn't stop the Mail saying:


If that sounds like Migrationwatch's headline, that's not a surprise - Slack's article contains all their press release quotes.

Slack says:

Labour's supposedly tough points-based immigration system actually led to huge increases in foreign workers...cleared to live in Britain.

Except the number of new workers 'cleared to live in Britain' was down.

The Telegraph mindlessly followed too:


But the increase in Migrationwatch's figures includes visa extensions. These are not 'extra migrants...allowed into Britain' and the first figures show the number of foreign workers let in is down.

The Express went with:


As you can see from the opening paragraph, Martyn Brown makes a similar mistake, and goes further in claiming Migrationwatch's figures are about all non-EU migrants.

The BNP, as usual, picked up on Migrationwatch's figures and, having got out a calculator and added up all the big numbers, declared 1.2million immigrants had come in under the PBS in the last three years, despite it being in force for only 18 months.

The problem is the tabloids are obsessed with trying to prove there are too many immigrants coming to the UK. Migrationwatch are too, and so any press release sent to the tabloid churnalists which has an eye-catching headline, a few respectable-looking figures and an anti-immigrant message is grist to the mill.

There's no thought given to questioning the stats, no double checking, no quotes from anyone who may challenge Migrationwatch - because they have no interest in proving them wrong.

(More analysis of Migrationwatch's figures available at Left Foot Forward)

Mailwatch exposes not-at-all-special Mail investigation

Over at Mailwatch, Jamie Sport has done another excellent article ripping apart a dreadful 'special investigation' by Sue Reid - their go-to reporter for in-depth (ahem) immigration articles.

The latest is firmly in the 'jobs scare' category, trying to pretend that there is a big problem with migrants taking jobs from British workers. Except the two sets of numbers she is using can't possibly compared in a sensible way, as Jamie proves.

And even in the way she has presented the figures, they show the situation isn't half as bad as the Mail wants it to be. They have put the figures in a little table, showing each area of the country - but of the 33 towns they give figures for, only 8 of them show more migrant workers than British ones.

Three of those eight are in London, but in the text Reid admits the figures for London as a whole are in the Brits' favour.

But that is all only relevant if you accept the pointless statistical analysis that the article indulges in.

But it shouldn't be accepted. Because it is, clearly, bollocks.

It's worth adding that on two occasions Reid does admit something that the Mail quite possibly has never admitted before:

While a NINO can be used to access social benefits, most newcomers from abroad are not eligible for these payouts and use the number only to seek work.

And:

A claimant is a person on job-seekers' allowance who is actively trying to find employment. Newly arrived foreigners cannot get this payout.

Hmm. I wonder how often they will repeat these statements? Hopefully more often than they have so far.

Recommended - how dare we try to teach healthy relationships in schools

Two excellent posts from the Daily Quail - one the Mail's latest bizarre BBC and ageism and Strictly Come Dancing nonsense, and on today's awful Mail front page complaining about teaching children about wife-beating.

Here's how James Slack's story begins:

Pupils as young as five will be taught about the evils of 'wife beating' and the need to form healthy relationships.

The lessons are part of a controversial drive, unveiled today, to reduce violence against women and young girls.

Controversial? How can that be in any way controversial?

Slack and the Mail - sometimes it's just beyond parody.

Calais immigrants take YOUR cash...except they don't

The migrant scare story of the day comes in the form of the Global Calais Scheme, which the French and the British are hoping will disperse immigrants from the town. There is little to be found on these plans from the UK Border Agency, but most of the papers disprove the angle they put on the story towards the end of their own articles. Here's a run down of the headlines and first paragraphs:

The Mail's version, Britain paying illegal migrants in Calais £1,700 to return home, is co-written by our old friend James Slack.

Illegal immigrants queuing to enter Britain are being offered 'bribes' worth £1,700 to return home instead.

The Express goes for You pay for migrant sneaks to go home, which claims:

Migrants trying to sneak into Britain illegally from France are to be offered £1,700 of taxpayers’ money and a plane ticket to return home in a new scheme that is set to cost millions.

The Star's Illegals get £1.7K bribe to go home goes with:

Migrants queueing to enter the UK from France are to be offered £1,700 of taxpayers’ money and a free flight home.

While the Sun's Migrants ‘paid off’ said:

Illegal migrants queuing up in France to enter Britain are set to be offered £1,700 each and a free flight home.

All of which clearly point to one thing - the British taxpayer is going to pay £1,700 to illegal imigrants.

But then the Telegraph tweaks the story a little, but rather crucially early on in its article:

Under the scheme, migrants will be offered a plane ride home as well as resettlement assistance and retraining when they get there. The French government is also offering 2,000 euros (£1,724) in cash.

Hmm. Really - the British taxpayer won't be paying that £1,700 after all? No. As anyone who bothers to read to the end of the Mail and Express stories will learn:

A spokesman for the UK Border Agency said: 'The Government does not give cash handouts to migrants in Calais, and the bill for these flights is met by the French government.

'We are contributing with the French to the Global Calais Project, which persuades those barred from entering Britain to go home, which will ultimately save the British taxpayer from the cost of enforcing a removal.

So how does 'we don't give cash and are not paying for the flights' turn into 'the British taxpayer is paying £1,700 and for flights'?

More jobs for British workers, according to the Mail

5CC has posted on the latest foreign worker scare story, written by James Slack in the Mail. As he points out, this is a old favourite dragged out by the tabloids at regular intervals (although the figure has dropped from all jobs, to 85% to now 70%), and which he has proved to be rubbish on countless occasions.

But there are a couple of points I would like to add. First, the Mail's story British jobs for foreign workers: Experts reveal 70% of new jobs taken by migrants is based on OECD's International Migration Outlook 2009. The press release to accompany the report has the title: Keep doors open to migrant workers to meet long-term labour needs, says OECD. This recommendation doesn't appear anywhere in Slack's article. Nor does their statement that: 'In the United Kingdom and Ireland migration from the new EU member countries has declined by more than half'. How did he forget to mention those points?

Secondly, this story appeared on 1 July. But the Mail had done very brief article on foreign-born workers only a couple of days before, on 29 June. Headlined 'UK jobs going to foreign workers' it was inspired by (ahem) Balanced Migration, the Mail's second favourite migration organisation.

Here's the first line of the story:

The vast majority of private sector jobs created under Labour have been taken by workers born abroad, offical figures show.

At which point you wonder - since when did the 'foreign worker' story get split between public and private sector?

And the answer: when the private sector figures says what you want better than the total figures.

The Balanced Migration press release is: All private sector jobs created under Labour have gone to foreign workers: “British jobs for foreign workers” - the last part of that appearing in the headline of the Mail's 1 July story (churnalism, much?). Notice how it is 'all private sector jobs' - which becomes 'nearly all' later in the piece.

But even that is a distortion to get the right story - it turns out it's actually only private sector jobs of people under retirement age.

The 'research note' admits:

The picture looks slightly different in respect of all working people over the age of 16 because a significant number of UK born people have stayed on after the official retirement age. These figures show that 1.1 million new jobs have been created in the public sector of which 28% went to non-UK born workers. In the private sector there were 1.8 million new jobs but 85% went to non-UK born workers.

So even if you accept this stupid numbers game (and 5cc shows you shouldn't - extra people in employment is not 'new jobs', foreign might not mean foreign and there are 'almost 4 million immigrants are in work in the UK, compared to almost 26 million UK born people'), Balanced Migration have put an inflammatory headline on a statement that clearly isn't supported by the facts. 85% is not 'all'.

But why this split between the public and private sectors anyway? Simple: the overall figure for all jobs would be much lower than 'all' or even 85% - it works out about 63%/37% based on these figures. Figures which, they admit, 'are estimates based on survey respondents’ views about the organisation for which they work'.

Then again, if Balanced Migration must split it, why not say '72% of public sector jobs gone to British born workers'?

So that was the flawed paper on which the Mail's 29 June story was based. Except, it didn't quite get the figures right because it mixed up the totals for the private and public sectors (even Mail people who agree can't get to grips with Balanced Migration's weird breakdown)

So the Mail claimed:
15% of 1.1 million private sector jobs went to British born people, and
72% of 1.8 million public sector jobs (which it mentioned only in the last paragraph).

Whereas Balanced Migration claimed:
15% of 1.8 million private sector jobs went to British born people, and
72% of 1.1 million public sector jobs.

So when the Mail journos aren't copying and pasting, they're getting it wrong. Does it matter? Well, ironically, yes. Because going on the Mail's statistics, they show that of the 2.9 million 'new jobs', 1,461,000 went to British born people (50.4%), and 1,439,000 to foreign born (49.6%).

Oops. No wonder they wanted Slack to get back on track two days later with a '70% of jobs go to foreigners' story.

Recommended reading

5CC finds the latest James Slack classic isn't all it's cracked up to be (surprise) - Britain isn't more violent than US, South Africa or anywhere else in Europe.

Over at Angry Mob, Lois Lane has written about the Mail's article on Body Dysmorphic Disorder - ironic given the Mail's obsession with finding fault with the look - and especially weight - of celebrities (such as Leona Lewis and Jennifer Love Hewitt). And their bizarre fascination with knees.

Meanwhile Uponnothing posts on the Mail's latest Facebook scare - it nearly destroyed a marriage!

At Enemies of Reason, Anton comments on the differences with 'final photos' of Diana and Michael Jackson, courtesy of Richard Desmond; and on the latest PC ban on crucifix nonsense.

Lady Scamp finds the Mail is now making stories out of the comments left on their other stories.

Slack - his name fits his fact-checking

Notorious exaggerator and Migrationwatch poodle James Slack is up to his usual tricks, with another anti-immigrant, anti-Labour story in the Mail.

He says the Home Office has issued a document explaining how immigrants can 'earn' citizenship in six years rather than eight by doing 50 hours of unpaid voluntary work, including working at soup kitchens, helping out at a museum or being a school governor. Needless to say, these aren't the focus of the story, because that might make the idea seem, you know, reasonable.

And this is the Mail, so we can't have that. It focuses instead on the fact that trade union activity and canvassing for a political party are also on the list. And they turn that into this:

Want a British passport? Just stand on a picket line or canvas for Labour - 'Migrants will win fast-track passports if they stand on picket lines or knock on doors asking people to vote Labour, it emerged last night'.

Of course, earning citizenship is nothing like as easy as 'just' standing on a picket line or doing some canvassing, although the average tabloid reader probably thinks that headline is literally accurate.

Moreover, the rules are not about Labour - nine paragraphs later, it admits that the canvassing 'also covers the Tories and Liberal Democrats'. But Mr Slack, didn't you say they would be asking people to vote Labour?

Slack has form on pushing this idea that the country is full of immigrants who have the audacity to want to vote, and the implication is that Labour allows it because the newcomers vote for them.

In the final line of the article, it says that 'the earned citizenship scheme has been delayed by nine months, to December 2010', at which point it is probable that Labour will be in opposition. So it may not happen anyway. And it is hard to work out exactly what the status of these guidelines are - the Home Office website doesn't appear to mention them, and as the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill is still going through Parliament, it's likely that this is simply a list for consultation. But Slack has never let the facts get in the way of a misleading story...

[EDIT - 13 June: The Star has also written an incorrect headline with A Brit passport if you picket and vote Labour. Voting Labour gets you a passport? The story, obviously, does not support that claim.]