How should news crews report on this summer’s ‘migrant’ boats? With greater care over their language, argues Ray Snoddy.
A primary rule of journalism, particularly television journalism, is to get out there, get close to the story and if at all possible, get the pictures.
But what if the story involves overcrowded, possibly leaky ‘migrant boats’ in the English Channel and the subjects are risking their lives to get to the UK?
Is it enterprising journalism to set sail and get close enough to try and interview families on the run from countries such as Syria, Iraq or Iran? Certainly the BBC and Sky News thought it legitimate to do so, even though some of those onboard the boats are heard to say “no cameras”.
Both news organisations have been accused by opposition MPs and refugee organisations of everything from voyeurism and a breach of journalistic ethics to filming them as if they were in “some grotesque reality TV show”.
It is difficult to see which Ofcom rule would cover such a situation. The boats have come, at least in the most obvious superficial sense, of their own volition, and they are obviously in the most public of places.
If there’s a failure, it’s probably only one of taste – but then again, what would have happened if one of the boats had started to sink? Would they have intervened and tried to help? Or would they have carried on filming?
The arguments are as old as the hills. In a potentially tragic situation when does a journalist abandon the role of observing and communicating in favour of the human imperative to help?
My memories are still fresh of how uncomfortable it was as a young reporter many years ago, trying to interview survivors of a plane crash in the foyer of a local hospital. Was that what they needed most at that particular moment?
The dilemma of BBC and Sky news crews is only one example of the many problems thrown up by the current coverage of migrants – or should that be refugees – seeking asylum.
The near universal use of the term ‘migrant’ in print and broadcasting is a loaded one, carrying as it does an underlying element of voluntarism – people somehow choosing to move from one place to another, perhaps even for economic reasons.
The word migrant is often preceded without a second thought by the word ‘illegal’, even when there is nothing illegal at all in people fleeing from civil wars or the real danger of persecution to seek asylum.
Politicians, up to and including Prime Minister Boris Johnson, talk of those who have come to the UK “blatantly illegally.” Home Secretary Priti Patel has appointed a Gilbert and Sullivan Clandestine Channel Threat Commander and wants to turn out the Navy. While the “common sense” group of Conservative MPs talk about an “invasion” on our coastline.
Unsurprisingly, The Sun knows where it stands on the issue. The French “wave them off” from Calais and our Border Force plucks them from the water – and not one of the 2,860 who have arrived since May have been returned to France.
“Tasking the Navy with turning the boats back is vital,” insists The Sun – ignoring the fact that most specialists think such an idea is both impractical and potentially dangerous.
Yet, The Sun itself exposes the myth of a great seaborne invasion with the relatively small numbers involved.
So far this year, around 4,000 migrants, refugees or asylum seekers, depending on your point of view, have crossed the Channel – ironically driven by a belief that it’s now or never before the UK finally cuts its ties with the EU at the end of this year.
In the scale of things, the problem is tiny. Germany has taken 32.4 per cent of EU asylum seekers, Sweden 15 per cent, with France on 6.8 per cent.
The UK has taken 4.5 per cent of such asylum seekers – a tiny proportion of the immigrants who come to the UK every year by less dramatic means.
A cynic might think that an emphasis on the drama in the Channel in both the media and the mouths of politicians might just serve as a welcome distraction from far larger, more intractable problems facing the UK on a daily basis.
Meanwhile, apart from a more careful use of language, the media can and should be doing a better job of explaining why the boats keep coming, why the UK is the destination of choice, despite everything, and who these people are.
While there will always be chancers interested mainly in a brighter economic future, just as there are those happy to fleece them, that is far from the majority motivation.
Most are fleeing unimaginable suffering in countries such as Syria and Yemen and most chose the UK, either because they have family members here already or speak English as their second language, and may also have professional qualifications.
Certainly on top of everything else, they do not deserve to be turned into an invasion and demonised by media and politicians.
Broadcasters need to be more careful on their pronouncements – not just their marine heroics.
The BBC News channel announced that the rules say refugees must apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach, which would at a single sweep of the pen by the BBC make all the dinghy people illegal.
By definition, France is a safe country – at least in comparison with any of the countries they have come from.
While you would need a couple of immigration QCs to provide a definitive answer, and even that might be contested, what is clear is that such a bald statement is unlikely to be true. At the very least it is misleading.
According to the House of Commons’ library, international law does not require asylum seekers to make their claim in the first safe country they hit and this is recognised by English case law and section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
However, there is then the EU’s Dublin III agreement, which provides mechanisms for deciding which EU country should deal with applications for asylum – including returns to the first safe country. But a primary principle involves keeping families together, which limits the first safe country provision.
Ironically, for those who want to strengthen UK border controls, a No Deal Brexit would mean the Dublin III agreement would fall away as far as the UK is concerned.
It is all hideously complicated whether you are talking about law, morality or media ethics.
Perhaps the only answer is a little more compassion, empathy and care in use of language and avoidance of over-simplifications even before launching the boats.
