Why don't the news media report the reasons why migrants come to the UK on boats? : askuk

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Because that might invoke feelings of empathy & compassion for the human beings risking their lives travelling across the channel.

Or raise awareness to the criminal exploitation migrants suffer to just get a position on the boats. Or the continued exploitation they endure whilst living in the UK. Just ignore what possible reason someone would uproot their lives and travel thousands of miles illegally, I'm sure it was something small & trivial...

No no no... all our world's problems are solely caused by migrants! Certainly not the billionaires exploiting everyone pushing the narrative.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Or raise awareness to the criminal exploitation migrants suffer to just get a position on the boats

No, I've seen plenty of reporting on that. Never on the reasons they're trying to get a position in the first place though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well then, they don't report because the reason varies from migrant to migrant. Usually there will be a line or two in the report about where and possibly why, but anything past that means they have to interview someone who isn't in a position to be interviewed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

because the reason varies from migrant to migrant

I don't see why varying reasons for getting in boats justifies not reporting on those reasons.

Usually there will be a line or two in the report about ... possibly why

I've never seen such a line. Can you provide a reference to one?

someone who isn't in a position to be interviewed

What do you mean by this?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Those reasons aren't known, so must be assumed. The migrants are typically arriving illegally and don't want the attention of interviews.

Lastly, I'm 50, and can't document my memory but typically I would listen to news on something like NPR and they would say that a migrant boat was captured, say, from Greece, and say that there's extremely high unemployment there. Other reasons given would be natural disasters, outbreaks of violence, lack of food, etc.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Those reasons aren't known

What makes you think that?

The migrants are typically arriving illegally and don't want the attention of interviews.

The migrants depart as well as arrive. I find it hard to believe that the media has no knowledge whatsoever of what kind of motives these people have. If they didn't have such knowledge, I would expect them to at least state that the motives are unknown. Instead what I find is just a void of any mention of motivations whatsoever, to the point that it gives the appearance of an intentional blackout. Hence my question: why?

Greece, and say that there's extremely high unemployment there

I think we're talking about different phenomena here. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, which isn't Greek citizens looking for work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_European_migrant_crisis

Edit: I see you're talking about NPR which I believe is American. To be clear I'm talking about British media. Perhaps foreign media doesn't have the same appearance of a blackout.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Well said!

[+] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Media gets paid billions to talk shit about migrants.

Eh? By whom?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Everyone who profits off war and softer forms of imperialism. Prime examples are the defense industry, tech industry, and petroleum companies but many others benefit as well.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Any evidence to back up what you're saying?

Edit:

@lemmy.ml

I see. Nevermind :-)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why even ask this if you don't want answers? You seem to be rejecting or dismissing every attempt in this comment section.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

What are you doing out of your tankie cage, trying to interact with normal people? Get back! Back I say!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

I am guessing that it is (1) news outlets get main income from advertisers (2) advertisers pay 'per view' (3) news outlets create 'clickbait' stories to get lots of views (4) £millions changes hands via clickbait (5) clickbait uses crude emotion to hook engagement so evoking fear, envy, anger, lust, pity etc are what 'news' is about, not in-depth nuanced reports based on facts, arguments, reason, truth and other relatively unemotional stuff. You can do 'hot takes' or you can do investigative journalism. Britain used to be global leader on high quality journalism. Now we just churn out mindless, emotionally manipulative, 'soap opera' crud.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Name one time Britain bombed Albania.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

WW2.

My dad was RAF. From age 18, he flew from Italy, across Yugoslavia to bomb Romanian oil fields - an essential campaign in order to deny Hitler fuel/win the European war. There were very high Allied casualties. To facilitate a safe air route to Romania, Allies bombed Yugoslav territory including what is now called Albania to knock out anti-aircraft guns, intelligence/radar/communications centres, and military HQs . My dad crashed three times in his war career. (1) a few minutes after take-off, engine failure, plane written off, minor injuries but crew all survived (2) shot down over enemy territory, plane split in half, three crewmen survived including my dad - scratches but no serious injuries, everyone else died, the survivors were found by Yugoslav resistance fighters and smuggled back to Allies in Italy (3) shot down over enemy territory, plane smashed into mountainside, everyone died except my dad, trapped in burning wreckage, he crawled free, was badly burnt on hands and face (everywhere not covered by flying suit), Yugoslav resistance found him, smuggled him onto a ship, he arrived at a hospital in Cairo, Egypt where he was given plastic surgery by an expect on a visit from UK - there to train others in new techniques. Dad was invalided home. Was arrested as a suspected spy because his face no longer matched his official photograph. Was placed in prison until he was vouched for by his parents, parish priest, and former headmaster. He was all of 19 when invalided out of active duty. There were hundreds of boys with similar stories to his. Thousands who died and never even had a grave.

British needed help from Yugoslavia (specifically from Tito's communists) in order to beat Hitler and his allies (the Balkan fascists, monarchists, nationalists, the Bulgarian fascists, the Romanian fascists). We made treaties and agreements. We cannot just conveniently forget these debts because time has passed. We British would not be here, enjoying our freedoms, without Yugoslav help. My mam's family were Jewish, if Hitler had won, she'd have died in a camp. I would never have existed. Britain owes a big debt. I owe a big debt.

There is a much longer historic link. British have interferred in Balkan politics from at least time of Lord Byron and the Greek struggle to leave Ottoman Empire, mid-C19th. We relied on their help to beat Napoleon. We British have long historic links to these places and people. We went there, they have a right to come here. Just like the places our empire colonised are forever tied to use by history, so are the places we were once depending on for our survival. The people forced to be British citizens in the past, have a moral right to come here if they wish. The people who saved us through military alliances, have a right to our hospitality. The only Albanians I would keep out are the people who were then, and still are, our enemies - the Albanian nazis and their criminal gangs. But same goes for Americans, Indians, ANZAC, Chinese - all the allies who fought side by side with us in WW1 and WW2 - all are welcome except the scum who never helped us and never would in a future struggle.

Educate yourself about our history!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I meant in the present as that person seemed to be of the impression the boats were filled with refugees from some war we were fighting against Albania. I wouldn’t have bet on them knowing about the two disagreements we had with Germany last century.

[+] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

formerly working class

Just curious why you refer to the poor people you're talking about as "formerly" working class?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I assume because the traditional definitions of working class do not translate well to modern society.

The terminology used to apply to anyone who could not afford to stop working without a significant limitation to survival. (I.E. no income generating assets). Nowadays, it has been used to exclude benefits claimants. Often even when those claimants work. And many landlords with income generating assets or farm owners etc. Would def include themselves as working class.

As the language has evolved, the term working class just doesn't mean what it used to. Poor gives a better definition (though far from perfect). Of people who have zero choice in how they live.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

As the language has evolved, the term working class just doesn't mean what it used to.

I disagree.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Your welcome to. But evidence disagrees.

Working class no longer has the meaning it did to the populace. According to today's dictionary, It should be unskilled, But most include skilled engineers etc. That no longer applies. The deffintion before that was between income earning asset ownership or not. Defined working vs middle class. No one really follows that any more.

Language evolves as its usage and definitions change, is a fact of history. And the evidence clearly points to a dilution in the meaning of classes in general. Heck, even upper class in no longer limited to those of aristocratic birth.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

evidence

Are you able to provide references to some of that?

Language evolves

Some language does. The word "granite" means the same now as it did in 1900. Same with "sky" and "goat" and "glass". And "working class".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Unskilled vs skilled is in the dictionary. Working class according to the dictionary is only unskilled labour. Whereas society provides multiple examples of modern skilled labour in the form of plumbers electricians engineers heck even steel working is a skill many do not have. So evidence of that one is everywhere. But later Ill provide some documented and anecdotal evidence on the changes of the definition of skilled labour. And with it, working class.

Older working class def (income based assets) are from Victorian times. I am visually impaired and heading out for a few weeks. So atm do not have the time to find the documentation in my references. But will contact you in a few weeks when I'm back at home. And have time to search.

Some language does.

Yes but even those are not 100% Go back before modern geology (Likely 1300s and before) Granite just meant and unyielding rock. (at least in the south of England) Modern geology gave it a more specific type of stone with crystalline structure. (a modern geologist may cringe at that def as well.)

As for sky. We now have a definition of the sky being just earths atmosphere. Yet 1000 years ago, Brits would suggest stars are in the sky. Even early astronomers had no real concept of space vs the sky. Around the 1200s we started to conceive of something beyond the sky, and by the 1600s newton had a pretty clear idea of the movement of other planes. But really not until flight was it accepted that there may be a limit to our atmosphere. The idea of something beyond what we think of as sky is still relatively modern. But today no one thinks of Venus/Mars etc as being in the sky.

All language evolves, just some over decades, some over centuries. Some based on scientific understanding. More based on how the community understands and needs to communicate. Words like phone have evolved in my lifetime. (landlines were all that existed until my 20s.) Words like Computer in my parent's lifetime. (Referred to a mathematically skilled person until the late 1960s)

But even in the 1960 computers were considered working class. While engineers were not. At that time, women were never considered skilled labour due to.... Well if we're honest, men of the time being arseholes.

Now, if we go back to my grandmother. Look up the ford sewing strikes of 1968. My gran was part of that. A time when the UK was forced to change the very definition of skilled labour to include women. And likely the start of the language used to define working class as more than just unskilled labour. Pulling other degree level skills into the definition.

So yeah, Lang evolves at different speeds. Some pretty darn fast.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I also remember something about the meaning of goat changing a few hundred years back. Mainly due to science excluding sheep from the definition. But i've no idea where I heard that. Likely on eons. Glass used to refer to a volcanic process that created clearing stone. The current man-made product def did not exist. But the volcanic stuff is still called glass. So yeah, that one likely counts as expanded rather than evolved.

I'll give you a freebie. Cloud has not really changed its meaning since the Norman conquest.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Depends on the media source, if you look up a documentary you'll find the reasons stated, but if you look up article headlines it won't have the same balanced explanations (if they mention the root cause at all.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I'm talking about news media, to be clear. I presumed "report" would make that clear. I've edited the post title to add the word "news".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Why are they coming?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

Mainstream news media (MSM) do not. I opted out of MSM years ago because they filter the news and misinform. Now, if I go to their sites or see a printed newspaper I only do the crosswords or look at the cartoons - NEVER, EVER read readers' comments or you'll go mad!

One podcast I enjoy is Media Storm - two young British women doing good, old-fashioned 'investigative journalism'. They cover the boat migrants stories very well indeed and never repeat dehumanising slanders against them. I use Android apps like 'Antenna Pod' (downloaded free from f-droid). It gives free access but sometimes you will hear adverts. I always use my vpn to locate myself in Japan or Cambodia i.e. a country where I cannot understand the language so that if I get ads they are incomprehensible or actually intetesting because from another culture.

I want to recommend the USA 'Cool Zone Media' podcasts too - they do a number of different podcasts. I especially enjoy 'Better Off Line', 'Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff' and 'Behind the Bastards'. Some of it discusses current affairs like political takes on migration, other programmes focus on history because this stuff is not new and we can learn lessons from reviewing what happened the last time we scapegoated 'migrants'.

All of these podcasters are creating educational, informative content and are often very funny (although sometimes the jokes are a bit off-colour so might not be everyone's cuppa tea - makes me chuckly 99% of the time).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Because they can’t drive to an island

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

My question is about the media.

Ask UK