This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licence. It is free to read at Oxford Academic and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations. Across the world, the number of people forcibly displaced from their homes has more than doubled during the last decade. Although international law does not allow states to turn back refugees, some countries close their borders to refugees, some open their borders and grant extensive protection, while others admit some groups of refugees while excluding others. How can we make sense of these different responses to admitting refugees? In this book, Daniel Drewski and Jürgen Gerhards show that governments' refugee policy, as well as the stance adopted by opposition parties on the issue, is heavily dependent on how they frame their country's collective identity on the one hand and the identity and characteristics of the refugees on the other. By defining the "we" and the "others", politicians draw on collectively shared cultural repertoires, which vary by country and by political constituency within a country. The book is based on a discourse analysis of parliamentary debates. It explores the specific framing of nations' identities and the corresponding perceptions of otherness by focusing on six countries that have been confronted with large numbers of refugees: Germany, Poland, and Turkey, all responding to the exodus of Syrian and Middle Eastern refugees; Chile's reaction to the Venezuelan displacement; Singapore and its stance towards Rohingya refugees; and Uganda's response to the displacement from South Sudan. The study explores not only differences between governments of different countries but also the conflicting views of different political parties within the same country. This volume has emerged from research carried out as part of the Cluster of Excellence "Contestations of the Liberal Script - SCRIPTS", which analyzes the contemporary controversies about liberal ideas, institutions, and practices on the national and international level from a historical, global, and comparative perspective. It connects academic expertise in the social sciences and area studies and collaborates with research institutions in all world regions. Operating since 2019 and funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), SCRIPTS unites eight major Berlin-based research institutions: Freie Universität Berlin, the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, the Berlin Social Science Center (WZB), the Hertie School, the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), the Berlin branch of the German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), the Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS), and the Leibniz-Zentrum Moderner Orient (ZMO).

At the end of 2018, more than 68.5 million people were displaced from their homes. Of these displaced persons, 22.5 million of these people were forced to leave their homes and find safety in another country. These people are known globally as refugees. Many of these refugees in recent years have fled to Western countries in Europe and North America. This immigration and the general subject of refugees and their integration into their host countries have recently been a large subject for media. Many of these refugees came from countries and cultures that may carry stigmatic backgrounds including Middle Eastern and African countries. For decades, media portrayals in entertainment, social, media, and news media have shown people from these countries in certain ways that may conflict with truthful characteristics of people from these cultures. The purpose of this study is to help better understand how refugees’ personal assimilation experiences compare to information distributed by the media. Through researching existing studies of media portrayals of refugees and Muslims through the lens of framing theory readers can better understand what information is distributed in Western cultures about refugees. Then, through conducting in-depth interviews with refugees hosted in Europe and the United States, seeking understanding of refugees’ personal stories, life experiences, and their perceptions of media representations of people of their same refugee status, readers may additionally better understand any differences in the portrayal of refugees and the experiences had by refugees themselves. Using grounded theory, poignant themes emerged from the interviews to explain how interviewed refugees’ lives are similar or differ and are affected by Western media portrayals. Emergent themes indicated that primarily polarized news accounts may interfere with refugee acculturation by making social and cultural connections difficult, discrepancies in qualifications, and issues with misunderstanding refugees’ lack of mobility. Additionally, refugee sentiments about refugee media portrayals and acculturation were evaluated to better understand how the media affects their assimilation processes.

Abstract: This study examines the framing of Arab refugees and asylum seekers in the global news, represented by the news stories published on the online edition of CNN. Based on the framing theory, the quantitative content analysis found the attribution of responsibility frame to be the most salient and frequent frame in the coverage of Arab refugees and asylum seekers. The responsibility frame ascribing the Arab refugee crisis or its resolution to different actors and groups surpassed the other four news frames-- human interest, conflict, economic consequences, and morality; although the five frames were existent in coverage. The lone hypothesis of the study expecting thematic frames to be more common than episodic frames was found supported. That is, the news coverage of Arab refugees tended to be thematic, as it covered the issue in the broader context, whereas episodic frames that focus on individual accounts and personal stories were less frequent. Security terms that describe Arab refugees as potential threats were found more often than the humanitarian terms that frame them as victims. The study pinpointed the lack of photos and voices of Arab refugees in the news coverage, as 90% of the relevant news articles did not include their quotes, whilst around two-thirds of the news stories did not include any of their images. The featured quotes tend to frame Arab refugees negatively, whereas the embedded photos presented more positive frames, however, the overall framing of Arab refugees and asylum seekers in CNN news stories tended to be generally balanced.

The crisis of forced displacement is compounded by the politicization of asylum and refugee protection, which have become polarizing issues in many countries in Europe and in the United States. It has animated efforts by pro-refugee civil society groups to engage in advocacy efforts that respond to the securitization of the issue, reframe it as a human rights and humanitarian issue, and bring about policies that are favorable to refugee protection. The contrasting points of view surrounding refugee and asylum policy reveal a fundamental normative difference in what is considered the most appropriate standard of behavior to guide actions and policies in the wake of the European refugee crisis. This normative difference, and the contestation that it entails, represents the starting point for this study of specific strategies of norm-based change. The study focuses on civil society organizations (CSOs) and the deliberate ways they incorporate and use norms in framing and responding to the issue of refugee protection. It seeks to understand and explain how and why pro-refugee advocacy groups choose to use specific norm-based strategies of advocacy in their effort to shift public opinion on the issues of asylum and refugee protection and ultimately bring about policy change.

This book investigates the politicisation and framing of immigration in the media and political arena in Central Europe, examining two countries - Czechia and Slovakia - in the period surrounding the “European migrant crisis”. Following years of immigration being practically invisible as an issue in the socio-political debates in most Central and Eastern European countries, it became a key concern because of the crisis. Analyzing news media items and plenary speeches, this book reveals how securitisation eclipses humanitarian considerations, dominating the discourse around immigration and that media and politicians are the two most important intermediaries from which citizens take cues on issues they rarely experience directly themselves. Finally, it also shows how the media and political arena portray immigration differently based on the origin, religious background, and legal status of immigrants. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of migration studies, global governance, international organisations, security studies, and media studies, as well as more broadly for public law, comparative politics and East/Central European politics.

Media have played an important role in framing the public debate on the “refugee crisis” that peaked in autumn of 2015. This report examines the narratives developed by print media in eight European countries and how they contributed to the public perception of the “crisis”, shifting from careful tolerance over the summer, to an outpouring of solidarity and humanitarianism in September 2015, and to a securitisation of the debate and a narrative of fear in November 2015. Overall, there has been limited opportunity in mainstream media coverage for refugees and migrants to give their views on events, and little attention paid to the individuals’ plight or the global and historical context of their displacement. Refugees and migrants are often portrayed as an undistinguishable group of anonymous and unskilled outsiders who are either vulnerable or dangerous. The dissemination of biased or ill-founded information contributes to perpetuating stereotypes and creating an unfavourable environment not only for the reception of refugees but also for the longer-term perspectives of societal integration.

Abstract: This study examines the framing of Arab refugees and asylum seekers in the global news, represented by the news stories published on the online edition of CNN. Based on the framing theory, the quantitative content analysis found the attribution of responsibility frame to be the most salient and frequent frame in the coverage of Arab refugees and asylum seekers. The responsibility frame ascribing the Arab refugee crisis or its resolution to different actors and groups surpassed the other four news frames— human interest, conflict, economic consequences, and morality; although the five frames were existent in coverage. The lone hypothesis of the study expecting thematic frames to be more common than episodic frames was found supported. That is, the news coverage of Arab refugees tended to be thematic, as it covered the issue in the broader context, whereas episodic frames that focus on individual accounts and personal stories were less frequent. Security terms that describe Arab refugees as potential threats were found more often than the humanitarian terms that frame them as victims. The study pinpointed the lack of photos and voices of Arab refugees in the news coverage, as 90% of the relevant news articles did not include their quotes, whilst around two-thirds of the news stories did not include any of their images. The featured quotes tend to frame Arab refugees negatively, whereas the embedded photos presented more positive frames, however, the overall framing of Arab refugees and asylum seekers in CNN news stories tended to be generally balanced.

The large-scale movements of refugees and economic migrants from conflict zones to more stable societies have resulted in challenges, both for new entrants and their hosts. This fascinating volume brings together a collection of media analyses focused on immigration issues to examine how migration has been represented to the public. Case studies exploring media coverage of migrants and refugees in Europe enable the reader to better understand the complexity of the process through a range of unique and unexplored dimensions of immigration analysis, including strategic framing theory, game structure analysis, migration maps and routes, television narratives, rumour-based communication, and state-bred campaigns. The insights into the perspective of migrants, the general public and policy makers provide innovative methodological and theoretical analysis on population movements which will be of interest to scholars, students, and policy makers working in the fields of migration studies, international relations, peace and security studies, and social and public policy.

Document from the year 2017 in the subject Communications - Journalism, Journalism Professions, grade: 1,0, University of Hamburg (Institut für Journalistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft), language: English, abstract: „The chancellor does not make any deals.” This is a statement from the German government spokesman Georg Streiter, who answered a question of the journalist and YouTuber Tilo Jung during a session of the Federal Press Conference in April 2016 (Jung 2016). Streiter obviously did not find the term deal appropriate for the new agreement1, the EU had made with Turkey in order to reduce the number of refugees coming to the EU via Turkey. In Germany’s political language the term deal has nothing but a bad, dubious or at least un professional meaning, whereas Abkommen–the German word for agreement–has a neutral and respectable connotation. Consequently, it is no surprise that spokesman Streiter did not like a journalist using a term like deal. However, Jung used the term in full awareness of its bad connotation, probably to put emphasize on the arguably political background of the agreement.

Master's Thesis from the year 2016 in the subject Communications - Movies and Television, grade: 12, University of Copenhagen, language: English, abstract: Taking framing and agenda-setting as theoretical approaches, the present study analyzed the portrayal of refugees in German news reporting before and after the Cologne mass sexual assault on New Year’s Eve 2015. Comparing the two largest public (ARD and ZDF) and private (RTL and Sat1) TV broadcasters, the results indicated that the incident had an immediate impact on the news reporting of all channels, but not in the long term. The problem/threat frame peaked in January 2016 for all channels. Overall, private channels showed a stronger tendency to emotionalize the news and portray refugees negatively. Especially RTL strongly changed its portrayal of refugees after the incident. The political frame was most popular for all channels after the incident, but much stronger so for public channels. The number of articles published peaked for public as well as private channels in the month following the incident. Public opinion data indicated that the popularity of the German right-wing party AfD has increased to an all time high since the beginning of the refugee debate in the media. The Cologne mass sexual assault did however not have an immediate impact. It is argued that the effect is cumulative rather than a short-term immediate reaction to specific events.