Public Opinion on Migration and the Role of the Media in the Context of the “European Refugee Crisis”

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the relationship between public opinion on migration and its media coverage. Migration as a topic was politicized and mediatized during the "European refugee crisis" and its media coverage changed over time and varied across European countries with different geopolitical situations, ongoing societal debates, economic challenges, asylum policies, as well as distinct histories as countries receiving migrants and refugees. Different explanatory models, including individual characteristics, cultural factors and the impact of media and politics, have been proposed to explain public attitudes towards migrants. The public tends to overestimate migrant numbers and to base their opinion on what they imagine the dominant type of migration to be. Media portrayals of migrants either as a burden or as a resource or framing stories with a security threat or a humanitarian angle has an impact on attitudes and shaping public understanding of this phenomenon. Understanding the local context is important, as the shares of migrants living in each region and city vary considerably. Providing correct statistical information, stressing the diversity of current migration patterns in Europe and taking part in media and public discussions are ways in which to impact public attitudes at the local level.

Migration Strategies at the Time of a Crisis: Asylum Applicants in Finland

“…More than half of the arrivals in the European Union (EU) originated from countries with war or unstable, war-like circumstances, namely Syria (700,000), Afghanistan (360,000) and Iraq (250,000) (Eurostat, 2021). The movement and reception of these individuals created political pressure for the receiving and transit states from both the public and the media (Koikkalainen et al, 2021;Virkkunen & Piipponen, 2021a). Many of Europe's borders were closed, and the unity of the EU and, ultimately, the rationale of the entire European free movement regime, were questioned.…”