Good refugee, bad refugee: Why media representation matters

In the past two weeks, with global attention glued to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the deep-seated racism embedded in leading media institutions has been on full display.

Mainstream media’s impassioned pleas to help Ukrainian refugees have often been sprinkled with coded language like “civilised” and “middle class”, and bewilderment at how such violence could ever be inflicted on “blonde and blue-eyed” Europeans.

Many from the global south couldn’t help but wonder: where was this sympathetic coverage when Syria, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and so many more met a similar fate at the hands of other imperial powers?

As one Spanish politician bluntly summarised it: “Ukrainian refugees are welcome, Muslim refugees are not.”

This has justifiably triggered outrage and backlash. Beyond being hypocritical, the danger of the media’s exposed double standards comes from the power it has in shaping global events.

"As the online and offline world become more intimately intertwined, the digital sphere has increasingly become the arena in which some of the most pressing humanitarian and political issues are played out"

The power of the media

In media studies, there is a common understanding that the power of the media stems from its ability to not only reflect but actively construct reality by determining what is worthy of our attention and how we should feel in response. 

“The media is our primary way of locating ourselves in the world,” Myria Georgiou, Professor of Media and Communications at London School of Economics, told The New Arab. “Most of what we know about the world comes from the media, from our screens and our smartphones, so it becomes difficult to think outside those frames,” she added.

The media’s power as a narrator is commonly dubbed the “CNN Effect”, which holds that coverage of world events by powerful mainstream media outlets can have a significant impact on policy decisions by moulding public perception.

Recent history has highlighted some of the most notable and well-documented examples of the consequences of media representations, including American media’s role in manufacturing consent for the 2003 Iraq invasion, the impact of fake news in the 2016 US election and the Brexit referendum, and Facebook’s complicity in the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar.

As the online and offline world become more intimately intertwined, the digital sphere has increasingly become the arena in which some of the most pressing humanitarian and political issues are played out.

“Digital rights are not a separate category from human rights… the distinction between online and offline is fictional,” Marwa Fatafta, a Palestinian digital rights activist and member of Al-Shabaka, explains, emphasising that digital rights go beyond freedoms directly connected to the online world.

Critical engagement with the media, including reflexivity when it comes to the way in which Ukraine has received exceptional attention, has therefore become a vital component in global struggles against oppression.

Mind your language

For many, the media is the main vehicle through which they are exposed to people from widely different backgrounds, playing a major role in shaping how we feel about “others”.

Georgiou explains that this is where both the strength and weakness of the media lies. “It’s a double-edged sword, because it brings the ‘other’ close, but only offers selective access to their humanity,” she said.

The recent coverage of Ukraine, particularly on refugees, has focused on how they are part of a European “us”. But in doing so, it has pushed other refugees further to the margins of humanitarian care.

In a comprehensive content analysis study on media representations of the 2015 Syrian refugee  “crisis”, Georgiou and her colleague found that media coverage of refugees shifted between two themes: humanitarianism and securitisation.

Between these two themes, “migrants themselves are subjected to very narrow frames in how they are portrayed. They are either victims, with very little agency or opportunity to speak, or they are perpetrators who are hostile and threatening to Europe,” Georgiou explained.

The current coverage of Ukraine has an important similarity to past refugee crises: what Georgiou calls the “moment of ecstatic humanitarianism”.

However, so far, coverage of Ukraine has lacked the securitisation framing, because rather than being perceived as threatening outsiders, media coverage has emphasised Ukrainian refugees’ likeness to the West, highlighting the colour of their eyes, hair and skin, and their “civility”.

"The recent coverage of Ukraine, particularly on refugees, has focused on how they are part of a European 'us'. But in doing so, it has pushed other refugees further to the margins of humanitarian care"

Representations of Ukraine have therefore enjoyed a moral clarity rarely bestowed on others, as mainstream media’s dominant position has rightfully sided with those resisting invasion. 

In other contexts, however, mainstream media has often hidden behind the journalistic ethos of objectivity and impartiality to avoid taking sides. This phenomenon, known as “bothsideism”, has been criticised for paving platforms for climate deniers and far-right ideologies, but continues to prevail in media coverage of Palestine. 

“Palestine has always been a battleground for narratives,” she said, “everything is portrayed as a two-sided conflict.”

“There are no two sides of the story when it comes to oppression, there is an oppressed people and there is an oppressor. When Russia invades Ukraine, all of that becomes crystal clear and no one is talking about ‘both sides’,” Fatafta added. 

Media as gatekeeper

In addition to implicit biases, forms of explicit discrimination are also rife within mainstream media. 

A 2016 survey revealed that, in the United Kingdom, 94% of journalists are white, while they represent 87% of the workforce and just 78% of the population. Just 0.4% of British journalists are Muslim and only 0.2% are black. 

Lack of diversity in newsrooms can exacerbate implicit biases and result in distorted representations of certain populations, particularly those from minority racial, cultural, and religious backgrounds.

Media outlets further influence narratives through editorial standards that define what reporters can and cannot say, often behind a façade of neutrality.

For example, many major newsrooms, from the Associated Press to the LA Times, explicitly prohibit the use of the word “Palestine”. Others, like Deutsche Welle, ban reporters from using terminology such as “colonialism” and “apartheid” when describing Israel.

Ah yes, @nytimes. Famous for their balanced coverage of #Palestine. https://t.co/S55Ip1LPm8 pic.twitter.com/SgwKQpV6ou

— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) May 14, 2021

By deciding who is given a platform to speak, the media also plays a powerful role as gatekeepers. An MIT study of the New York Times’ coverage of the First Palestinian Intifada found that just 40% reference Palestinian groups or individuals, while 93% provide an Israeli voice. 

In response to mainstream media’s distortions, Palestinians and others have often turned to social media as a crucial lifeline to penetrate the mainstream narrative. 

But despite the perception that social media is a democratic tool, free from the biases that plague traditional newsrooms, Fatafta notes this is not the case. “It would be nice to think that social media spaces are free, but those days are over.”

Palestinian content documenting life under occupation is systematically censored by social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, while Israeli government tweets taunting Gaza with rocket emojis are allowed.

"[Ukraine coverage] provides a unique opportunity for reflexivity on the political and humanitarian implications of the conscious and unconscious decisions being made on a daily basis in the world's leading newsrooms"

In contrast, videos of Ukrainian citizens making Molotov cocktails have been widely celebrated and shared, and tech giants have acted swiftly to protect users and subvert Russian disinformation.

“It makes you ask: whose freedom of speech deserves to be upheld and who deserves to be censored,” Fatafta said. 

A teachable moment

In just ten days, media attention on Ukraine has helped spark a number of historic decisions, from the EU announcing blanket protections for Ukrainian refugees to widespread global sanctioning and condemnation of Russia.

Simultaneously, the consequences of the media’s prioritisation of certain lives are already playing out at Ukraine’s borders, where African, Asian, and Arab immigrants in Ukraine have been denied the refuge their white counterparts have enjoyed.

Those denouncing racism and double standards have been accused of stealing the spotlight, playing the victim, and “whataboutism”. But critiquing media representations of Ukraine does not diminish the immense civilian suffering.

Rather, it provides a unique opportunity for reflexivity on the political and humanitarian implications of the conscious and unconscious decisions being made on a daily basis in the world’s leading newsrooms.

“It is important to have that reflexive response to hold the media accountable,” says Georgiou. 

To expose the racism on our screens today is to reckon with how a lack of criticality, reflexivity, and accountability can have disastrous consequences, embracing this as a teachable moment so as to avoid repeating past mistakes.

Nadine Talaat is a London-based journalist writing about Middle East politics, US foreign policy, and media studies. She is also part of The New Arab's editorial team. 

Follow her on Twitter: @nadine_talaat