At the end of August the Sun put a picture of a pink poodle-shaped balloon on its front page, not to illustrate the last dog days of summer but the latest migrant hotel scandal, a story that has dominated the UK news agenda for weeks. In this case, the “balloonacy” of teaching hobbies to asylum seekers.
The silly season, in which the press seeks to entertain readers with lighter news during the summer, is cancelled this year.
Anti-migrant papers such as the Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Telegraph have, predictably, delivered most of the 1,571 stories mentioning “migrant” and “hotel” over the past month, but according to the media archive site Nexis, reporting about the issue has shifted in many other parts of the media. The plight of refugees is now consistently framed as a threat to “locals”, with even the broadsheet Times reporting a court case citing legal obligations under the inflammatory print headline: “Hotel migrant rights outweigh those of locals, ministers argue”.
Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, tells me of toxic coverage with real-life consequences. “The mainstream media and political opinion is in a very different place than it was a year ago. Now there’s an idea that everyone coming here is a potential sexual predator, a potential criminal.”
Sections of the press have long delighted in stories of division and outrage rather than nuance and debate. But now – and this may be crucial – they have the added difficulty of having to compete with social media as to which is best placed to speak for “the people’.
We see a symbiotic relationship – with politicians jumping on populist bandwagons and using the rightwing media to do so, who then flood their websites with the resulting outrage. This circular obscenity has seen shadow cabinet ministers such as Robert Jenrick playing to the media gallery outside migrant hotels this summer. Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch joined the unvirtuous circle with her claim that “Women are afraid to go for runs in the park as men lurk in bushes”, echoing a Telegraph story last month quoting “Sophie”, who lives near a migrant hotel and said she would never walk home alone at night as “You just don’t know who is hiding in a bush.” It’s rabble rousing 360 degrees.
Standing in the middle of the circle now is Nigel Farage, whose policy of holding weekly press conferences during parliamentary recess has allowed him – with conspicuous help from media devotees – to dominate the headlines. This week, he was buoyed by journalists asking not whether his plan to return 600,000 migrants was the right thing to do, but rather if it is workable.
He then passed his torch to the Mail: “Finally, a politician who gets it”, said its front-page splash. “Other political parties can snipe all they like,but Mr Farage is in tune with Middle Britain”.
The Sun, in an editorial headlined “plans for Nigel”, agreed that Farage understood “ordinary Britons” and understands their “total despair”. The Telegraph on its front page welcomed the fact that the Taliban would give Farage “a deal”.
Only the leftwing Mirror, in a front-page story by veteran journalist Paul Routledge, broke ranks with a headline: “Britain is better than this – forget Farage, we need more decency and humanity”.
Outside the circle, the Financial Times, shared a warning from the world’s leading central bankers, including the Bank of England’s Andrew Bailey, that the biggest economies faced an “acute challenge” of ageing populations and needed immigrants.
But that sort of thing struggles to break through. It is the circle that holds sway.
It’s hard to be completely sure what is dictating the tone of the rightwing media coverage. Is it that the outlets and their proprietors want to see Farage in No 10 – on the basis that would be best for the country – or do they merely believe potential audiences want that and seek to reflect them? Any consideration of that question must also consider falling newspaper circulations. The race to be the voice of “the people” may also be about survival.
It seems unlikely that the warmer tone of Rupert Murdoch and his News UK titles yet adds up to wholehearted support for Farage, but they are a sign that they are restless. And anger, grievance and radical plans do sell news.
What of the BBC? Can it be and remain an honest broker? Can it reflect the views of those living in the country’s poorest neighbourhoods, who feel ignored by the media and politicians alike, and the concerns of refugees and those who support them? It’s a debate mired in political opportunism and submerged in mendacity, so that’s a big ask of the BBC, but it must deliver.
Journalism is often described as the “first draft of history”, but can anyone, looking at today’s newsstands, reviewing today’s output, really think that history will be anything but damning?
First, do no harm. Punch up, not down. Shed more light than heat. These sentiments, in different ways, used to mean something in our media. They still could. They still should. And if they did, perhaps migration – its effect on people, its effect on our country and its effect on our communities – would get the debate it deserves.