Refugees, Asylum Seekers and the News Media

CRIM2034 Task 2: Research Essay

Refugees, asylum seekers and the Australian news media

The policy debate regarding refugees and asylum seekers is contentious and ongoing, both within Australia and overseas. As the issue has evolved over time, subject to political conditions and global events, so too has the media’s coverage of the issue. This essay aims to analyse the Australian news media’s constructions of refugees and asylum seekers, specifically in relation to the recent High Court ruling which declared the Federal Government’s offshore processing policy as lawful (Plaintiff M68-2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016]). Extracts from two news articles on the High Court decision will be analysed and contrasted to exemplify particular constructions of refugees and asylum seekers and illustrate the subtle distinctions with which a single event can be reported in the news media. It is my position that, despite a predominantly negative construction of refugees and asylum seekers, gradual progress towards a more empathetic and humanitarian understanding of the issue is possible, and is in some respects already underway. This essay will conclude by outlining the potential role of the news media in contributing to this incremental shift towards more positive constructions.

News article analysis: A discourse of exclusion

The constructions of refugees and asylum seekers is affected by a trilateral process involving the media, government policy and public opinion (Holtom 2013). These factors are intricately interconnected and are continually impact on one another to produce a spectrum within which refugees and asylum seekers and constructed. Collectively they contribute to a dominant and ongoing discourse of exclusion, within which refugees and asylum seekers are targeted.

The extracts selected for this analysis come from a larger selection of online news articles relating to the High Court decision. The two extracts were selected based on the criteria that (a) they utilize multiple news reporting techniques (as will be discussed further below), (b) analysed together they present slightly contrasting representations of asylum seekers and the Court decision, while (c) still remaining fairly neutral on the scale of negative/positive portrayal extremes.

Extract 1 (Hasham 2016)

1. … Mr Turnbull reiterated the government’s strong commitment to thwarting the people-smuggling trade…

2. Supporters said the woman, who has a baby daughter, was “terrified” of returning to Nauru, where asylum seekers say they have suffered physical and sexual abuse, poor health care and inadequate living conditions.

3. … Human Rights Law Centre legal advocacy director Daniel Webb, whose organisation brought the case to court…

4. … about 200 people who have been detained offshore and are now in Australia temporarily…

5. A former worker on Nauru…

6. Following the verdict, Green senator Sarah Hanson-Young said sending the children to Nauru would be “child abuse…”

In this extract, the asylum seekers are located in relation to the “people-smuggling trade”, which draws attention to the supposed success of the government in halting the practice, and serves to legitimize any government decision to send them back. This illustrates the chronic politicisation of refugees and asylum seekers in the news media, whereby representing them within the framework of politics or border protection enhances their construction as a ‘problem’ or ‘threat’ to the Australian nation-state and minimizes the self-representation and humanisation possible if reported as a humanitarian or human rights issue (Lueck et al 2015).

In addition, the reference to people-smuggling as a “trade” implies elements of organised crime, profitability, and voluntary involvement on the part of the asylum seekers (Lueck et al 2015). Representing the group as willing parties to their own involvement in such ‘criminal’ activity constructs them as criminals-by-association, which serves the present them as a threat to Australian border security as well as deserving of their detention on Nauru.

Conversely, the use of the “people” in section iv is notable for its neutrality, where other terms such as “detainees” or “unauthorized arrivals” could have been used, and which carry more negative connotations (O’Doherty and Lecouteur 2007). This objectivity lends accuracy and balance to the article as it avoids inflammatory language that could otherwise portray the group in significantly more negative ways (Santoro 2012).

Sections iii, v and vi contribute balance to the article by providing alternative viewpoints to the issue, which assists the audience to develop informed opinions (Holtom 2013). Furthermore, the use of sources that have legitimate relevance to the story should not be underestimated, as it lends authority to their viewpoints. Mr Webb (section iii) represents the official oppositional authority to the High Court decision, given his direct involvement in the case, while senator Hansen-Young (section vi) represents the broader opposition towards current asylum seeker policy in general. The reference to the “former worker on Nauru” in section v provides less official, though still relevant insight into the experiences of asylum seekers and their reactions to the decision.

Section ii is notable in giving a voice to the “terrified” woman at the centre of the case, which is largely a rarity in refugee and asylum seeker reporting (Santoro 2012). Additionally, referring to the “abuse” and “conditions” experienced on Nauru provides context to the issue and allows the audience to develop and understanding for the suffering experienced by asylum seekers on Nauru.

While chosen for its overall balance and objectivity, this article highlights the subtleties inherent in news articles that can be seen to – intentionally or not – contribute to an underlying negative orientation towards the issue (O’Doherty and Lecounteur 2007).

Extract 2 (Meers 2016)

1. High Court paves the way for the return to Nauru. [Title]

2. The illegal arrivals, who were sent from Nauru to Australia for medical treatment…

3. The full bench of the High Court, in a clear six-to-one majority…

4. … a thumping win for the bipartisan offshore processing laws which have helped to stop illegal boats arriving to Australia.

5. [Mr Turnbull]: “Nobody should ever doubt the resolve of this government to keep our borders secure, to prevent the people smuggling racket, to break their business model and keep lives safe to prevent drownings at sea, and to protect vulnerable people from being exploited by ruthless criminal gangs.[“]

6. Only Justice Michelle Gordon ruled against the government.

From the title of this article, the way in which the High Court decision has been framed aligns it with notions of progression and achievement which are typically associated with the phrase “paves the way”. Positioning the decision as a success, however subtly, initiates a ‘win/lose’ dichotomy between ‘us/them’. Reinforcing a distinction between ‘mainstream society’ and ‘refugees/asylum seekers’ situates the latter as ‘foreign’ and ‘other’, and serves to distance the audience from their plight while justifying exclusionary policies (O’Doherty and Lecounteur 2007).