Lingua sull’immigrazione nelle notizie e nella politica del Regno Unito ha scoperto che “ha modellato il contraccolpo contro l’antiracismo”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/02/language-on-immigration-in-uk-news-and-politics-found-to-have-shaped-backlash-against-antiracism
di StresWeeting
19 commenti
Or maybe because members of the public have eyes and can see discernible evidence themselves? Are we really at the point of “deny what your lying eyes see”?
almost as if certain people opinions are being shaped…
Anti-antiracism.
If only there was a way of phrasing that more succinctly.
Pointing out problems with immigration is still condemned as racist despite the public voting against it consistently for at least a decade.
It’s almost like our political class is in denial about the scale of the problem.
Holy shit, the stupidity of this article and “study” actually physically hurts.
Yeah ofc parliament, the place where laws are debated, are going to talk about “Illegal migration” the most.
Phrases like “stop the boats” are just ways of deflecting from the real problem in society which is wealth inequality. They want you to be angry at the immigrants so you don’t think about the billionaires and corporate greed
Perhaps the guardian could reduce its “hostile language” like calling every single conservative movement “trumpist”, “anti-immigration” (how can you even be this? immigration is a fact of life and therefore everyone is pro-immigration automatically), “neofascist”, and of course the classic “far-right”. It seems for the guardian that the moderate sensible centre-right only exists in their head and never in the real world.
Look at Meloni, she got all of those terms thrown at her. In government, she’s a bog standard conservative that’s implemented a few tax cuts, encouraged more births and tried to reduce immigration. She’s hardly the next Hitler or Mussolini is she?
Maybe it was a mistake for antiracism campaigners to use racism accusations to try and stifle anti-immigration voices rather than saying that it’s fine + valid to be opposed to immigration as long as you don’t let that cross over into ill treatment of those immigrants which are law abiding and contribute positively to society
Government policy on immigration has shaped it even more.
I’d love to see an alternate timeline where all the complaints and concerns about mass immigration were taken seriously from the start, and a proper adult conversation had been participated in by all sides of the debate.
The discourse is in the mess it’s in because it was left as an open door for people with bad intentions to walk through and start manipulating the room.
Yet still, more fucking blame games, more circular arguments that go absolutely nowhere, more choose your side and pat yourself on the back for “clapping at” the other side.
I really do fear this ends with wars on the streets that put last year to shame, and eventual Trump style ICE. All because people with different opinions couldn’t sit in a room and act like fucking adults for 10 minutes.
Sorry but this whole situation really upsets me. It’s shit for everyone involved.
The way that people consume news is changing. Gone are the days where the only exposure to an issue was a tv news show.
People can film and upload their experiences, these are viewed by millions of people. As such there is a lack of control over the narrative.
Since this change the sentiment has definitely swung towards anti immigration. I would argue this is because the reality is people who are exposed to changes in local identity are unhappy and now have the opportunity to share those feelings rather than the message being centrally controlled.
How about
Fuck off we’re full
Nice and easy to remember,.doesn’t single anyone out
If you don’t live somewhere where immigration has ruined the living situation you won’t understand why people are so hateful.
If you’re living in the poorest areas that have now effectively become foreign hubs that have no interest in adopting British culture you’re very aware of what’s changed.
I’ve noticed that the idea that immigrants are a problem seems to be shot down by people who live in a bubble away from the problem.
An argument I’ve made for a while – quite clearly immigration post Brexit went far above the levels that the country can sustain, but there’s no debate with frames immigration as the positive thing it is overall, and the right wing press always frames stories in a confrontational way – may of their latest articles seem to be actively calling for riots again this summer
It needs toning down, during 2023 we had a spike of up to a million immigrants but polling up to that point was growing more welcoming up until the news reports suggesting in day to day life people weren’t having issues, it was only the news that triggered the concern
“When the UK news media represents immigrants, the image that is invoked … is of an ethnically minoritised person,” the report added.”
Well, they are hardly going to be described as white English, are they – what a ridiculous reflection.
I see no evidence of objective racism from the relatively benign terms used in the article – describing someone from boat crossings as an illegal migrant is not racist rhetoric, it’s a statement of truth.
This type of racism has been conjured up in the collective phanatises from those working at the Runnymead Trust – it’s storytelling, not reflective of reality.
People are exhausted of being gaslighted by others, the majority want both illegal and legal immigration to go down – it’s not that the majority don’t like people of a certain ethnicity, it’s that they recognise the levels are unsustainable and some major cultural differences are causing societal discohesion.
The government recognises this too – remember Starmer’s ‘island of strangers’ speech?’
The real issue with articles like this – that attempts to ‘sanitise’ language whilst painting the ordinary person as racist – is that when real objective racism occurs, it’s less likely to be believed. We need to step away from subjective phantasy and deal with objective evidence-based reality. Unfortunately, for the Runnymead trust, this reality shows 900 people crossed via boat on Thursday alone.
There seems to be a serious assumption of causation here without any apparent evidence for it, and also an assumption that these differences in language are down to the racism of the media and not just… the simple facts on the ground.
Like this: “When the researchers filtered “words associated with immigrants” in news data by nationality, religion, ethnicity and geographical location, they found the word “Mexican” was most strongly associated, “typically in the context of news reports about the USA”.” –
This will be from UK news discussing the immigration issue in the USA which was a considerable issue in the recent US presidential election. Mexico is the single biggest source country of immigration – especially illegal immigration. That’s just a fact. You literally cannot meaningfully discuss the phenomenon of illegal immigration in the US without using the word “Mexican”. So the use of that word is no evidence at all of prejudiced language by British media.
The rest of the article similarly seems to be mentioning the by-product of certain objective phenomena being discussed by the media, like illegal immigration or immigration from specific countries like China. This is then painted as a negative thing for even mentioning these terms, apparently, and it suggests that the media’s discussion of them is creating racial prejudice – with no evidence either of the prejudice or of the causal link.
It’s honestly a real shame that an important organisation like this would undermine itself by making such spurious arguments. Slightly embarrassed for them.
Suspect it’s more to do with the many non-integrating immigrants being allowed in, visible to all to see, rather than any language used
Backlash against anti-racism isn’t that a long winded way of saying racism?
No, people are seeing the shitshow that it’s becoming first hand