South Africans are deeply xenophobic. This unpleasant fact has been borne out by public opinion research since 1995, and can be seen in the all too frequent attacks on immigrants and popular calls for stiffer controls on immigration. South Africans display an extraordinary consistency in their antagonism towards foreigners.
Significantly, these attitudes are not the result of first-hand experience with foreigners. Rather, they are a product of misinformation, much of which comes from the media.
Five years ago, the Southern African Migration Project analysed the coverage of migration issues in local media from 1994 to 1998. The majority of newspaper articles, editorials and letters employed anti-immigrant language and uncritically reproduced problematic statistics and assumptions about cross-border migration in the region.
We revisited these themes to see what, if any, changes have occurred in the coverage — this time focusing on the period 2000 to 2005.
In general, the results reaffirm the previous findings. But we saw a gradual decline in the number of articles using pejorative references such as ”job stealers” and ”economic burdens”, less sensationalism and generally less negative reporting.
Coverage was, however, still highly polarised, with more than half of the material reviewed being anti-immigrant and employing sensationalist, xenophobic language, which could be because many journalists are xenophobic. Editors also provide space for articles, letters and opinion pieces they feel reflect public consensus on the issue.
South African newspapers also rely increasingly on wire services for their news about immigration, and this is where some of the most xenophobic coverage stems from.
Government officials are also implicated. Openly xenophobic statements are not uncommon, influencing journalists and appearing verbatim in news reports.
On the positive side, improvements in press coverage can probably be traced to the fact that immigration is no longer a new, unknown quantity. After a decade of cross-border activity, it could be argued that newspapers and journalists have a better grasp of the issue. Also, many South African media outlets now serve other African countries and are reluctant to alienate their new readership.
State policy and government action may also be part of the good news. Despite the occasional bout of xenophobic rhetoric, official government policy has moved toward a more liberal, managerial approach to migration. This is bolstered by government moves toward pan-Africanism, a desire to see South Africa in a leadership role continentally, an increasingly dominant liberal discourse on human rights, educational campaigns to address xenophobia and attention to business interests that favour liberal immigration policies.
Big business has arguably been the single most influential factor in shaping a more liberalised immigration regime. Capital has made ongoing, vigorous policy interventions on migration — and it is likely that liberal editors have adopted the same ideological position of their own accord.
Whatever the reasons, there were many more articles, op-eds and editorials calling for a more business-friendly immigration policy than there were in the previous study. But we cannot assume that pro-immigration press coverage necessarily means good journalism. Only when we have committed and critically informed journalists writing on immigration will we see a truly balanced debate on the issue in the South African press.
David McDonald is director of development studies at Queen’s University, Canada. Sean Jacobs is assistant professor of communication and African studies at the University of Michigan. The full findings of this research can be found at www.queensu.ca/samp