ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
The importance of the portrayal of reality in the press is well recognised, especially with respect to its capacity to affect public opinion. Articles on migration found in the Italian press with respect to four periods – the 2014 European Parliament elections; the end of the Mare Nostrum operation in the Mediterranean in 2014; the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016; and an eventless week in 2016 – revealed five main narratives: solidarity, responsibility, state-centred (Westphalian), instrumental and humanitarian. Each of them had its own specificities, while all were informed by Italy’s condition as a frontline state with regard to migration – the EU’s gatekeeper – and its paradoxical state of living in a ‘permanent/potential emergency’, constantly torn by its inability to reconcile security and humanitarian needs. An understanding of justice as non-domination was the main result of the analysis carried out, while there was little reference to migrants’ human rights.
That migration should resonate so widely and loudly in public debates was predictable, given both the increasing ‘politicisation’ of the issue and its intersection with the recent economic and social challenges facing many states. Italy is no exception, and its geographic position in the Mediterranean and institutional membership in the system of governance of the European Union (EU) (Lucarelli and Fassi 2017), together with ingrained domestic specificities add a distinct flavour to the direction and content of this debate.
In line with the blueprint of this Special Issue given in the Introduction (D’Amato and Lucarelli 2019), this article investigates how the Italian press reported some important events having to do with migration in Europe. Specifically, it looks for the main ‘narratives’ that emerged with respect to selected events. Narratives are considered cognitive devices which provide an interpretation of a complex event by making empirical claims of the causes and dynamics of the phenomenon in question and by pointing to causal relations between actions and events (D'Amato and Lucarelli 2019). The analysis aims to reveal the worldviews and justice claims embedded in them.
Debates on the ethics of migration and on what justice represents in this domain are taking on new vigour and for good reason: migration is one of those issues in which a synthesis between theory and practice has not yet been worked out, even though the situation today highlights the urgency of narrowing this gap to provide ethically informed responses. What is considered appropriate for tackling the phenomenon, in turn, depends on which conceptions of justice are given priority in the press’ framing of issues. It turns out that different justice conceptions may co-exist.
In this article, five narratives on migration are identified – solidarity, responsibility, a state-centred Westphalian narrative, and instrumental and humanitarian ones. They are then unpacked and analysed with respect to their referents of justice (e.g. states, citizens, migrants as human beings, migrants as specific subjects) and rationale (protection of state territory, protection of citizens’ interests, protection of migrants’ lives, recognition of migrants’ rights, recognition of specific individual needs, etc) in order to explore what interpretation of events and related justice views are advanced.
Justice is considered here in its ‘political’ dimension (Pettit 1997), with three possible understandings proposed as formulated in the broader Horizon 2020 project (GLOBUS-Reconsidering EU’s contribution to Global Justice 2016) informing this article. Non-domination sees the centrality of states (and their societies) as the primary actors and referents in the governance of the phenomenon, reaffirming the need to eschew arbitrary interference (Sjursen 2017). Justice is seen as impartiality when migrants and their rights are at centre stage, while justice as mutual recognition shifts the attention to the voices of the actors (migrants and receiving societies), as they are the most affected. The press analysis shows that the non-domination justice claim largely outstripped impartiality and mutual recognition.
The article develops as follows: first, it underlines the relevance of the press debate for scholarly research and clarifies the research design underlying the article; it then provides a brief historical overview of Italian migration policy. After that, it frames the context of analysis, introducing each period and its distinctive features. Main narratives are then presented and the conceptions of justice identified. Some conclusions wind up the article.
The press and migration
The importance of the portrayal of reality in the media and its capacity to affect public opinion is well known. As remarked by Giovanna Dell’Orto and Vicki Birchfield (2013, 1), “What we know about immigration processes and immigrants is shaped in part by news narratives and, therefore, so are our opinions about policies on borders and integration.” With respect to the Italian case, many commentators agree that the media have contributed to polarising the debate on migration (Sciortino and Colombo 2004), with mainstream newspapers and weekly news magazines publishing stereotyped frames of the issue (Pogliano 2014; Musarò and Parmiggiani 2014; Furia 2016). The terms used to refer to the phenomenon have not always been appropriate (Solano 2014) with frequent imagery of “invasion” and “emergency” evoked (Cuttitta 2012; Dal Zotto 2014), even though the Charter of Rome Association (Carta di Roma), founded in 2011, aims specifically at providing journalists with correct information on migration-related themes (Carta di Roma 2018).
The ways in which migration has been reported by the Italian press have been investigated by many authors. Emma Bond et al. (2015) describe migration in Italy by means of “words and images”. Dell’Orto and Birchfield (2013) show “how professional, institutional, and technology-driven journalists’ practices shape coverage of immigration”. Alexander Caviedes (2013) examines the relative frequency of securitisation and economic narratives in the Corriere della Sera newspaper between 2009 and 2012, as well as in French and British newspapers. More recently, the refugee crisis has been the central focus, with contributions by Yasha Maccanico (2018) and Monica Colombo (2018).2 Italy is also considered in the comparative evaluation of the impact of media attention on public opinion during the refugee crisis (Harteveld et al. 2018). Mike Berry et al. (2015) show that, during the refugee and migrant crisis, threat themes were the most frequent in Italy.
Research design
Narratives on migration retrieved from the press concern four events between 2014 and 2016, all of which had the potential to influence the debate on migration: the 2014 European Parliament (EP) elections; the end of the Italian Mare Nostrum operation in the Mediterranean (October-November 2014); the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016; and an eventless week (November 2016). Analysis of press debates on ‘common events’ (the EP elections and the EU-Turkey Statement) offers a comparative view of the narratives (and related justice understandings) that emerged in different countries. The end of the Mare Nostrum operation was chosen as the key event for the country in order to understand press attitudes towards it and the role of the EU in addressing it. The eventless week provided an opportunity to look at press frames and embedded narratives and justice claims in a period when no major event occurred.3
The newspapers chosen for the Italian case were Corriere della Sera and La Stampa, two mainstream, bipartisan dailies,4 and the Fatto Quotidiano and Il Giornale.5 The last two newspapers were chosen as they provide different or more provocative narrations of migration. The Fatto Quotidiano, founded in 2009, is sympathetic to the Movimento Cinque Stelle (M5S, Five Star Movement) and hence quite critical of traditional political formations (centre-right and centre-left). The Giornale is a right-wing newspaper close (especially in the past) to former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Only national editions were considered; letters, posts and interviews were not selected. While the sales and circulation of all four newspapers are quite low in general terms, Corriere and Stampa have a broader readership than Fatto and Il Giornale, which mostly attract a readership in tune with their editorial line ().
Table 1. Data overview per time-period and per newspaper
Setting the stage: Italy and migration
Since the end of the Cold War and even more so after the first steps were taken toward a common migration and asylum system at the EU level (1999), migration and, in particular, immigration have turned into a highly politicised and divisive issue in Italy (for a comprehensive analyses of the Italian approach to migration, see Einaudi 2007; Geddes and Scholten 2016; Sciortino 2017; Pastore 2016). A frontier state, Italy has always been impacted by unexpected and massive arrivals of migrants. Yet, this has never driven the country to prepare for it, with the result that every new arrival is perceived, framed and coped with as an emergency. Over time, this has accentuated the difficulty in dealing with the issue internally, but also created a complex relation with European partners (with reciprocal accusations of ‘free riding’ and ‘buck passing’).
There has always been an inherent attention in the nation to migrants, their rights, and their needs, Italy itself being a country of emigration until recently. The first (and thus far only) comprehensive law on the issue, the Turco Napolitano Law of 1998 had the difficult task of keeping up this attention while simultaneously trying to manage the issue in the context of a changing international scene and satisfying Italy’s desire to enter the European club. Meanwhile, the progressive transformation into a country of immigration opened up space for more hostile views of the phenomenon, relating it to challenges of public order. This stemmed not only from the political turmoil in Italy, but also from the changing geopolitical situation at the end of the Cold War, the Balkan wars, the EU’s enlargement process and then the terrorist attacks in the United States (9/11), which brought ‘mobility’ into the spotlight as a critical and potentially problematic issue.
When the Lega Nord (Northern League), a right-wing, nationalist party which arose out of the ashes of the ‘First Republic’ in the 1990s (on the First Republic in Italy see, among others, Di Giovacchino 2005), became part of the centre-right government coalition, the party used harsh tones and, in specific instances, was able to impose a clearly restrictive turn (Zorzella 2011; 2012), with the introduction of the crime of illegal entrance and permanence and with the 2009 ‘push-back operations’ in the Mediterranean, for which Italy was internationally sanctioned (Abbondanza 2017). This approach gained currency largely because of the failure to adopt comprehensive legislation and policies regarding the various aspects of the phenomenon, and above all to enforce effective implementation of reception capabilities and integration. Ultimately, this left space for ‘exceptional measures’,6 an emergency approach with consequent social tensions and marginalisation of migrants (Marchetti 2017; Godio 2017; ANCI et al. 2017), also adopted during the 2015 refugee crisis (Castelli Gattinara 2017).
Yet, the Italian migration and asylum policy was not influenced only by domestic factors. Italy’s role in the European system of migration governance was also instrumental in that it required definition of an asylum policy compatible with Schengen requirements. Indeed, its absence was at odds with both a reality of increasing arrivals from instable areas and the presence of an extensive ‘right of asylum’ in the country’s Constitution (Asprone 2012). At the same time, Italy’s primary role as a frontline state in the EU’s Dublin system of examining asylum requests emphasised the urgency of introducing some kind of measures.
Largely incapable of coping adequately with the inflows of the past and now being the entry door to the EU, the country increasingly adopted restrictive policies. Progressively, a narrative tilting the debate in favour of securitisation of the phenomenon gained currency in the press, while the dysfunctional nature of European rules to the detriment of frontline states was described as unjust in the political and public debate, especially in times of large inflows.
Migration as an issue in four relevant periods
The four periods considered for the analysis were already imbued with ethical issues. Three of them, the end of the Mare Nostrum operation, the EU-Turkey Statement/deal, and the eventless period, were specifically related to migration. What was interesting, then, was to see how migration was discussed, what elements were given priority, who the referents of justice were and what the logic guiding the arguments was. In the case of the EP elections, the ethical challenge posed by migration or, less ambitiously, the role played by migration as an issue did not appear. The overall number of articles in the press was negligible. Notwithstanding the increasing tensions provoked by the mounting arrivals of immigrants via the central Mediterranean route in 2014, the unilateral military and humanitarian operation Mare Nostrum and the upcoming presidency of the European Union the next July (2014), the press (with few exceptions such as La Stampa and Il Giornale), failed to consider migration part of the debate on governance at the EU level.
Although limited, the debate on the EP elections showed a marked emphasis on the economic crisis and the austerity measures adopted, the administrative, provincial and regional elections occurring concomitantly with the European ones, and the extraordinary performance of the Democratic Party with 40 percent of the consensus (double the second place M5S). The result was in stark contrast with the widespread growth of anti-system or anti-immigration parties/movements elsewhere, which represented the main focus for the press in discussing migration in relation to the European elections. For example, a terrorist attack at the Jewish museum in Brussels on 25 June, the day Italy went to the polls, occupied part of the press debate.
Despite the end of the Mare Nostrum operation and the start of the European Operation Triton, led by FRONTEX, on 1 November 2014, Italy continued to play a primary role in search and rescue operations and as a port of disembarkation. In the period under scrutiny, a crucial event for the future of the Italian political system occurred, that is, the transformation of the Lega Nord, as it was known until then. On 19 October 2014, on the occasion of a local demonstration in Milan, migration was framed by the Lega’s leaders as the glue between the northern and the southern parts of the country and a common, unifying threat. As a previously secessionist movement, the Lega (no longer Lega Nord) turned into a party embodying “less Padania [Po Valley] and more Le Pen” (Cremonesi 2014).
It was not the deal between the EU and Turkey of 18 March 2016 itself that triggered most journalists’ reactions, but the extraordinary EU-Turkey meeting of 7 March (de facto already hypothesising the deal) and the following day, when discussions seemed to be conducted bilaterally by Angela Merkel and Ahmet Davutoglu. This raised many comments regarding the EU’s internal migration governance, and the role of external actors and Turkey in particular. After 20 March, very few articles were related to the deal, partly because of the terrorist attacks on the Brussels Zaventem airport and the Maelbeck metro station on 22 March, just two stops away from European institutions.
The eventless week was of particular interest since, not influenced by major events/debates, it allowed for a genuine assessment of the issues chosen by the press. Unsurprisingly, the press focused particularly on challenges regarding ‘reception’. Much space was devoted to integration as a crucial issue (by all but Il Giornale), a subject quite absent in the other periods. Some articles were also devoted to the 25 November 2016 EP resolution calling for the freezing of negotiations for Turkey’s entry into the EU: here again, migration and the possible demise of the EU-Turkey Statement came to the fore.
Framing by the press
offers an overview of the main findings of the analysis: five narratives are identified and briefly explained. Certain justice claims stand out clearly from the press coverage (strong); others are only hinted at (weak).
Table 2. Main narratives that emerged from the analysis
Solidarity (the lack of)
The ‘solidarity’ narrative was largely present in all periods considered. It specifically raised the problem of burden sharing, but did so with respect to different issues, addressing various referents, embodying different rationales and hence raising multiple justice claims. This was by far the most frequent narrative at the time of the EU-Turkey Statement.
A first subset of the solidarity narrative concerned relations among member states, providing a clear view of how internal migration governance was perceived by the Italian press. This sub-set had three ramifications: the survival of Schengen (Ceccorulli 2019); the impact on Greece of the EU-Turkey deal; and the potential inflows towards Italy as a consequence of the closure of the Eastern route to the EU. With respect to the survival of Schengen, the press underlined how the actions of some member states were creating bottlenecks (for example, sluggishness or non-compliance with relocation decisions). In a utilitarian perspective, some articles raised the question of the potentially negative economic consequences of the demise of Schengen. The lack of solidarity among member states and the deal between the EU and Turkey required to halt the influx of migrants were seen as related, the latter necessary to preserve the Schengen area plagued by nationalist outbursts. Dismay with the EU’s political weakness with respect to both its (in)ability to take decisions and the potential blackmail from Turkey to which it could be subject was emphasized (see the ‘instrumental narrative’ below). Also, lack of coordination was denounced, as was the leading role of Angela Merkel in negotiating with Ankara.
Hence the justice claim emerging most vigorously was non-domination, seen as the effort to prevent the actions of some states from impacting on others. The survival of Schengen, achieved by sealing the EU’s borders, inevitably involved a deal with a third state. As explained, for example, “Non è solidarietà verso migranti e rifugiati; è solidarietà fra Paesi di arrivo, di transito e di destinazione” [This is not solidarity towards the migrants and refugees; it’s solidarity between the countries of arrival, transit and destination] (Stefanini 2016a), which underlines the centrality of states as the main players in governance of the phenomenon. These concepts are summarised in La Stampa:
L’immigrazione (…) è un tema dirompente perché la crisi che ha innescato non si cura; al massimo si tampona. E’ profondamente divisiva, scava al cuore della solidarietà e dei valori europei. Non ci sono soluzioni ideali. La scelta è fra il minore dei mali. Ma l’importante è che i leader scelgano. (…) Gli europei chiedono una mano al timone. Se non è quella dall’Ue, la chiederanno ai governi nazionali che non potranno non mettercela. Con tanti timonieri la barca europea perderà la bussola. Ogni Paese correrà allo scaricabarile. [Immigration is an overwhelming matter because the crisis it has triggered cannot be cured, at the most it can be held at bay. It is profoundly divisive, it corrodes the heart of solidarity and European values. There are no ideal solutions. The choice is between the lesser evil. But it is important that the leaders choose. (…) The Europeans are asking for help at the helm. If it’s not the EU, they will ask the national governments which will have to provide it. With so many helmsmen, though, the European ship will lose its bearings. Each country will hurry to pass the buck] (Stefanini 2016b).
Read in this way, the argument is also compatible with the ‘responsibility’ narrative, whereby the EU has a clear responsibility toward European citizens as well as towards its own survival.
A second ramification of intra-European solidarity with respect to migration emphasized the burden the EU-Turkey deal would place on Greece. All newspapers underlined this and some of them strongly denounced a clear disregard for the country’s situation, already hit hard by the economic crises. As explained by the Fatto, “Spetterà alla disastrata Grecia l’onere di far fronte praticamente alla crisi umanitaria dei profughi” [It will be the task of devastated Greece to cope with the humanitarian refugee crisis] (Zunini 2016). Often, the country’s bad luck was associated with that of the many immigrants and asylum seekers “trapped” in the country following the closure of the Western Balkan route in late 2015 and then the signing of the deal. In this sense, the ‘solidarity’ narrative crossed and fed into the ‘humanitarian’ narrative explained below.
Somehow related to the ‘uneven challenge’ facing Greece was a third ramification of the European solidarity debate, focused on Italy: the closure of the Western Balkan route and the extreme burden put on Greece would likely divert inflows from Greece to Albania and then to Italy. This possibility was invariably presented by all. However, unlike the concerns for Greece, the newspapers seem to have forgotten the human factor in favour of a preoccupation with the “invasion” (drawing on memories of the massive inflows experienced on the coast of Apulia in the 1990s). This approach resonates perfectly with what has been defined as “humanitarian securitisation”, whereby migrants represent both the ‘sufferers’ and a ‘threat’ (Chouliaraki et al. 2017).
Accordingly, an ‘emergency’ rhetoric started to appear in the articles, implicitly or explicitly endorsing border protection. “The perfect storm”, “massive arrivals”, “the peril is materializing”, “a human tide” were expressions used by the press. Also, notwithstanding criticism of the Turkey deal, it was suggested that this could be a ‘precedent’ for Italy’s relations with Maghreb countries to reduce the number of arrivals. Particularly caustic were the words of Il Giornale, bluntly accusing the other European states of ruining Italy’s future. Closing their borders to the imminent increases in arrivals after the March 2016 Statement, they purposefully created a sort of “Mexicanisation” of the peninsula. For example,
E con le frontiere a Nord chiuse a doppia mandata, con buona pace della “solidarietà” targata Bruxelles, ecco che l’Italia diventa praticamente l’unica porta verso il Vecchio Continente, un grande parcheggio della speranza per il fiume costante di immigrati che punta a raggiungere l’Europa. [With the borders to the north double locked and in complete disregard of Brussels’ ‘solidarity’, Italy has practically become the only door to the Old Continent, a huge parking area of hope for the constant flood of immigrants aiming to reach Europe] (Malpica 2016).
Here again, the narrative on the lack of solidarity and the undue burden on Italy goes hand in hand with the EU’s (ir)responsible behaviour.
The question of solidarity with Italy was also raised in the debate on the end of the Mare Nostrum operation and the launch of Triton (late October 2014). The issue revolved around the effective tasks of the European operation, which would still leave Italy in charge of rescue activities and the reception of irregular immigrants and asylum seekers. Finally, during the eventless week, a lack of solidarity with Italy was also seen in the nomination of Simon Mordue as Vice-President of the DG Home Affairs: the appointment of the British officer instead of the Italian candidate was described as a true slap in the face for Italy, a country at the forefront in the governance of migration.
A second subset of narratives on solidarity underlined the lack of cohesion among actors engaged in the reception of asylum seekers in Italy: regions, the central government, municipalities, search and rescue teams and people working in initial reception. Here, the emphasis on the lack of solidarity among actors produced an emergency rhetoric. This subset highlighted the failure to give voice to or consider the specific needs of the actors involved (both Italian citizens and asylum seekers), thus stressing the absence of the conception of justice as mutual recognition.
To sum up, solidarity as a narrative mainly pointed to the dysfunctions of the European system of governance and the Italian reception system and their consequences. Discussions about global solidarity and burden sharing were scant, and appeared in only a handful of articles, revealing the opportunistic nature of the debate, but also the treatment of migration as an ‘internal’ issue more than a global phenomenon requiring fair governance and responsibility.
Responsibility
Responsibility was a second narrative which found much space in the Italian press in the periods considered. As seen above, this narrative was often seen together with solidarity, given that uneven burden sharing was believed to be responsible for many of the problems arising in the governance of migration. In most cases, irresponsible behaviour was underscored. La Stampa described the migration governance, for example, with regard to the dire situation in the Idomeni camp in Greece during the refugee crisis as “continental inertia” (Zatterin 2014). Attention was clearly on the living conditions of migrants (hence advancing a humanitarian argument), but the ultimate aim of the press was to stress responsibility for this situation.
In some articles, the specific focus was on deaths at sea, migrants’ brutal exploitation by smugglers and the harsh conditions in camps in Europe. If at first glance this seemed to be a humanitarian approach, identification of the reason for this situation (policies of ‘openness’ acting like magnets) revealed a logic whereby the irresponsible behaviour of policymakers was to blame for the humanitarian catastrophe. For example, in Corriere della Sera:
In una situazione in cui occorre evitare qualsiasi iniziativa che possa mettere a rischio la vita dei migranti, non resta altra soluzione fuor che quella di controllare, per quanto possibile, tutte le porte d’accesso all’Europa. [In a situation in which all initiatives that can endanger the lives of migrants must be avoided, there can be no other solution than to control all European entry points as much as possible] (Romano 2016).
But in particular Il Giornale insisted on this, referring mostly to the humanitarian situation in Greece, the end of Operation Mare Nostrum, and reception problems: open policies inevitably lead migrants towards illegality and hence marginalisation. This recurring theme can be called ‘humanitarian pretence’: even though the referents of justice are migrants and asylum seekers, the solution to the injustice involves putting an end to ‘open policies’, which act as pull factors, reiterating the need for state control. It is highly debatable whether the subject implies a justice conception of impartiality.
The end of the Italian Mare Nostrum Operation and the start of the EU Triton Operation also triggered a wide debate on responsibility: on the one hand, underlining the retreat from the important commitment undertaken a year earlier (October 2013) and its ethical implications; and on the other, questioning the future of the many persons disembarked in Italy, where a proper reception policy was not yet in place. The shift from the national to the EU operation clearly created discomfort, albeit for different reasons. For Corriere della Sera, it was deceiving (and hence irresponsible) to speak of a “humanitarian handover”, as Triton was not a perfect substitute for the Italian operation: “Dovremmo ricordare che ogni miglio marittimo in più o in meno significa vita o morte per centinaia di naufraghi” [We must remember that one mile more or less can mean life or death for hundreds of people adrift at sea] (Buccini 2014). For Il Giornale (2014), instead, Italy had for years “subito l’invasione senza reagire” [endured the invasion without reacting], and Operation Triton was the continuation of a fallacious policy of attracting migrants and filling smugglers’ pockets.
With respect to migrants disembarked in Italy, all media underlined the appalling reception conditions offered by Italy, a clear sign of government irresponsibility towards both migrants and refugees, and Italian citizens. It was reported that, where the social fabric degenerates, both racism and crime proliferate. The press agreed that, notwithstanding sporadic initiatives, integration in society lacked direction. This narrative of lack of responsibility with respect to proper reception conditions intersected with the humanitarian narrative, but also with the one describing the multiple aspects of migration as a problem.
The press provided particular details of the situation at the Olympic village in Turin, occupied by migrants and asylum seekers with no clear occupation, described as “forgotten by the authorities”, “overcrowded”, in dire sanitary conditions, and located close to “angry and tired people” (Pogliano and Ponzo 2017). Il Giornale insisted particularly that “il fiume carsico della rabbia” [the anger seething under the surface] was already showing: shanty towns and thousands of jobless asylum seekers clumped in reception centres were becoming a potential powder keg (Bulian 2016).
Some ethical issues were raised by the press with respect to reception conditions: “Perché dobbiamo far arrivare le cose all’esplosione prima di intervenire? Perché non ci dotiamo di una strategia dell’integrazione degli immigrati adeguata?” [Do we have to wait for things to explode before we act? Why don’t we adopt an adequate integration policy?] denounced La Stampa (Sabbadini 2016), criticising the institutional void that had allowed the situation “to become gangrenous”.
A second argument stressing lack of responsibility with respect to reception was closer to the ‘humanitarian pretence’ mentioned earlier. Il Giornale directly condemned search and rescue operations such as Mare Nostrum as guilty of aggravating the many challenges of reception in Italy. While the other newspapers praised the work of Mare Nostrum for having saved many lives, Il Giornale complained that it brought “a large number of migrants” into the country. Undoubtedly, Italy’s haphazard policy, which saved so many lives but failed to provide (or even totally neglected the issue of) proper reception after arrival was also mentioned by the other newspapers. But the positive evaluation of the Operation and the questioning of ‘what is responsible policy’ were never expressed the way Il Giornale did. By making this argument, it intervened directly in the justice debate on what the ‘primary responsibility’ of states should be.
Westphalian. Migration as a problem
The press emphasised the problematic nature of migration in two ways. The first underlined the adverse reactions the issue of migration provoked in traditionally ‘open’ political formations, advocating policies of closure with a view to hampering the growth of radical movements. This argument was particularly clear in articles emphasizing how social democracies around Europe were becoming less sympathetic towards massive inflows. As reported by Corriere della Sera,
Le ondate di profughi (con i problemi di sicurezza e convivenza che si tirano dietro) stanno sommergendo un po’ ovunque ciò che resta o restava di una certa idea di Europa, sospingendo persino socialdemocrazie collaudate e avanzatissime come quella svedese sotto l’Opa politica dell’ultradestra e del populismo. [The waves of refugees (with their inherent problems of security and coexistence) are almost everywhere disintegrating what is left of a certain idea of Europe, pushing even experienced and advanced social democracies like the one in Sweden towards the far right and populism] (Buccini 2016).
A second way centred directly on potential problems related to migration. While most of the press reported that this negative impact was caused mainly by the massive disorderly arrivals of migrants, as well as shortcomings in legislation and implementation, some accusations were directed at regular migration or pinpointed specific types of migration. Given the perspective adopted, this narrative unequivocally endorsed a primarily state or societal concern.
As seen, the possible scenario of a diversion of flows from the Balkans to Italy after the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016 was reported with anxiety by all newspapers. The EU’s introduction of the hotspot approach (with full fingerprinting of all immigrants), seemed to be received by the press as a challenge Italy had long been able to avoid (having not fully complied with EU legislation in the past). The requirement that all immigrants remain in Italian territory (at least until their status is considered) inevitably raised the problem of reception capabilities. The economic challenge of governing migration was also pointed out, underlining for example the costs of the Mare Nostrum operation (La Stampa 2014); or the large informal market nurtured by irregular immigrants (Cottone 2014).
More emphatically, Il Giornale often framed the debate as a zero-sum game. Hence, it discussed the huge per-day costs of Mare Nostrum in relation to youth unemployment at 40 percent (Il Giornale 2014); and remarked that “Gli immigrati vengono sistemati in albergo, spesati di tutto punto fino a 1.000 euro il mese. Ottimo. Ma i connazionali pensionati che campano con 600 euro non sono contenti di osservare che è meglio essere profughi anziché italiani?”[The immigrants are put up in hotels, and taken care of to the tune of €1000 per month. Great. But surely our retired fellow countrymen and women who live with €600 are not happy to see that it’s better to be an immigrant than an Italian] (Feltri 2014)?
Although rarely with respect to the overall amount of articles selected, Il Giornale also hinted at a connection between migration and terrorism and at the potential diffusion of the Ebola virus because of the unchecked arrivals favoured by Mare Nostrum. Furthermore, asylum seekers in reception centres were described as loafing about, protesting, breaking things, smoking, drinking alcohol and going with women. These articles all touched on the ‘responsibility’ narrative. Some of the alarmist statements clearly had the effect of undermining the credibility of the principle of international protection.
A specific subset of this narrative, again only present in Il Giornale, advanced a cultural/value threat to Italians or more broadly to Western society, a sort of ‘clash of civilisations’. Denounced was the tendency to save migrants at sea with an “Islamic pedigree”, while disregarding Christians persecuted and trapped in remote countries (Biloslavo 2014). Or the contrast between asylum seekers’ norms and habits and those of the Western world was emphasized, raising issues of self-identification, cultural roots and faith (Allam 2016). The clash of civilisations theme was not dominant overall, but it is worth mentioning, as it proposed an irreconcilable divide between ‘us’ and ‘them’ (the migrants) which clearly discarded two of the three justice claims considered.
With its emphasis on potential threats to the state and the well-being of society, the Westphalian narrative denotes a clear securitisation approach to the issue.
Instrumental
The fourth narrative, involving the instrumental use of migration, emerged particularly after the EU’s deal with Turkey, but was also in reaction to the rise of radical right/xenophobic movements.
All newspapers agreed that Turkey had the upper hand in the arrangement with the EU, evoking the likelihood of potential domination, and that Turkish President Recep Tayyp Erdogan had once again used migration as a “political card” to blackmail the European Union. Europe is described as “kept in check” (Ottaviani 2016), having paid a big “political price” (Stefanini 2016), with Ankara imposing a “diktat”(Valentino 2016) and “doubling the stakes” (Gramaglia and Marra 2016a) on Brussels, “usando come ostaggi i circa due milioni di rifugiati siriani in territorio turco che possono riversarsi sulle coste europee”[using the approximately two million Syrian refugees on Turkish soil as hostages who can be pushed onto Europe's coasts] (Gramaglia and Marra 2016b). More emphatic is the language Il Giornale used to criticise the constant blackmail Erdogan exerted after the deal: “La Turchia minaccia di riaprire le porte ai migranti verso l’Europa per farci ripiombare nell’incubo della marea umana di un milione di persone sulla rotta balcanica dello scorso anno” [Turkey is threatening to open Europe’s doors to migrants again, evoking the nightmare scenario of being flooded by a million persons via the Balkan route of last year] (Biloslavo 2016). The narrative suggested the likelihood of potential domination by Turkey, impairing the EU’s possibility to choose freely.
Most of the press stressed the barter-like dimension of the Statement, with one Syrian from a refugee camp resettled in the EU for one irregular Syrian returned to Turkey: “un migrante a te e uno a me” [one migrant for you and one for me] (Battistini 2016), as well the trade-off of migration with acceleration of membership (Gramaglia and Marra 2016a). Clearly, the idea of ‘commodification’ and hence de-humanisation of migrants bought up the humanitarian narrative, emphasising the human rights often disregarded by Turkey. It also raised the issue of the outsourcing of migration governance to a third state, given Europe’s inability to cope with it alone (Zatterin 2016a).
Nevertheless, the press insisted on the ‘inevitability’ of the Turkey deal, reiterating the importance of states as primary actors in the governance of migration. Hence, La Stampa reported that the urgency to reach a common position “è stata più forte del fastidio davanti all’ennesima concessione” [outweighed concerns about another concession made] (Zatterin 2016b). Or as the Fatto explained, “Nessuno fa concessioni di buon grado ad Ankara in questo momento. Ma tutti sanno che, se Ankara non collabora, la situazione già drammatica peggiorerà” [No one wants to make concessions to Turkey right now. But everyone knows that, if Ankara doesn’t collaborate, the already dramatic situation will deteriorate even further] (Gramaglia 2016).
A second argument concerning the instrumental use of migration underlined how right and xenophobic movements and parties were fuelling anxiety among the public by means of migration-related fears, with a view to increasing their consensus. All parties emerged as sensitive to migration issues, but this was particularly so during the EP elections period. The issue was raised whether endorsing anti-immigration rhetoric to gain consensus would lead to more restrictive approaches to the issue.
Humanitarian
Although present in almost all periods considered and reported by all newspapers, the ‘humanitarian’ narrative did not drive the debate. This was mainly because the humanitarian argument upholding the narrative was not convincing. Particularly during the EU-Turkey deal and the eventless periods, the focus of attention was on migrants, but mainly on their conditions, their precarious situation. “Getting migrants on the front page is not per se a guarantee of fair coverage”, rightly clarified Gabriela Jacomella (2015). The language used by the press was often compassionate, merciful, exemplified by reiteration of the body-count at sea. Yet, attempts to see migrants as individuals (Fassin 2011) and holders of rights, and destination states as bluntly violating rights were scant.
Above all, humanitarian considerations related to solidarity, responsibility and instrumentalisation of the phenomenon were underscored. The uncertain destiny of migrants was emphasized both before and after the EU-Turkey Statement: migrants were described as exhausted, trapped, “stagnating” in Greece or the Balkans (La Stampa 2016), living in dire conditions. Clear (although often implicit) was the message that, in the battle to save Schengen, migrants ended up as a secondary issue. Seemingly, the vulnerable situation of migrants in Italy was recognised. Telling, for example, was the description of an informal camp in Rosarno (Calabria) and its comparison with the infamous Choucha camp in Tunisia (Giannini 2016). And yet this type of narrative was not powerful enough to instill the idea of the migrants’ centrality in the debate.
In concluding the analysis of narratives, a supplementary finding has to be highlighted: with few exceptions, little effort was made to frame and discuss migrants, asylum seekers and migration generally in a broader perspective regarding the governance of future challenges, their causes, the potential solutions and the directions to be taken. Absent these perspectives, the discussion was not broadened to alternative conceptions of justice.
Conclusion
The analysis of the Italian press coverage found five main narratives: solidarity, responsibility, Westphalian, instrumental and humanitarian. All were clearly informed by Italy’s condition as a frontline state constantly torn between securitarian and humanitarian inclinations. The ‘migration as a problem’ (Westphalian) narrative was the clearest in emphasising the centrality of state control in forestalling or coping with the challenges of migration. The argument was driven to the extreme in the ‘clash of civilisations’ view – a marginal argument but nevertheless worth mentioning. Two other narratives, the ones on solidarity and the instrumental use of migration advanced a conception of justice as non-domination: the emphasis was on the modalities of migration governance, both among EU member states and with third states. The narratives on responsibility and the instrumental use of migration by right or populist formations were also able to emphasise the lack of attention devoted to the actors, be they migrants or asylum seekers, local actors engaged with reception or Italian society. Overall, these narratives led to an overexposure of the consequences of migration in the Italian state and society.
The debate that emerged in the responsibility narrative was particularly interesting in that it questioned the meaning of responsible behaviour when applied to migration and led to a critical assessment of the use of humanitarian rhetoric in the Italian debate. By putting migrants and their marginality at centre stage, Il Giornale was able to make an argument in favour of closing borders. Humanitarian pretence, far from understanding justice as impartiality, was the leitmotif behind an argument which, no matter how disputable, represented a much more coherent line of reasoning than the contradictory rhetoric often voiced. Nevertheless, the humanitarian narrative was largely present throughout the periods examined. However, the scant attention to the different causes of the outflows and the mismatch between the humanitarian rhetoric and an understanding of justice as impartiality, that is based on the migrants’ rights as individuals and the obligations with respect to those rights, flattened the debate on benevolence, compassion and piety.
Questions such as why borders have to be kept open (at least partly); why agreements with third states must never neglect fundamental rights/values; why saving migrants’ lives cannot be ‘traded off’ with saving money; or, finally, why integration must be an absolute priority, remained largely unanswered, with only a few attempts to dig deeper into these issues. Even when describing the chaotic situation in Greece or the precarious reception offered in Italy, little space was devoted to the possible challenges of ‘domination’ that migrants might be exposed to because of gaps in legislation or the disregard for relevant rights.
As a result, humanitarian and emergency rhetoric could be found in the same article, along with the use of terminology that one would normally not expect from mainstream newspapers. The rapid shift from a humanitarian to a securitarian frame also noted in previous research (Pogliano 2014) was perfectly reflected in the mounting anxiety over the possible opening of an Adriatic corridor as a consequence of the EU-Turkey Statement. This mirrored the seemingly schizophrenic approach of the Italian government which, over time, displayed clear moments of humanitarianism, such as during the Mare Nostrum operation, but also a harsh approach with, for example, the push-back operations of 2009 or the recently adopted Security Decree (December 2018).7 This is also seen in the substantial lack of attempts to frame the issue differently, pointing out, for example, the potentially positive contributions migrants can make to a country destined to lose population through ageing.
| 1) EP elections | 2) EU-Turkey deal | 3) End of Mare Nostrum | 4) Eventless | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keywords | ‘European elections’’ and AND ‘migrants’ OR ‘migration’ OR ‘immigration’ OR ‘profughi’ OR ‘clandestini’ OR ‘asylum seekers’ OR ‘refugees’ | ‘Turkey’ and AND ‘migrants’ OR ‘migration’ OR ‘immigration’ OR ‘profughi’ OR ‘clandestini’ OR ‘asylum seekers’ OR ‘refugees’ | 'Mare Nostrum' AND ‘migrants’ OR ‘migration’ OR ‘immigration’ OR ‘profughi’ OR ‘clandestini’ OR ‘asylum seekers’ OR ‘refugees’ | ‘Migrants’ OR ‘migration’ OR ‘immigration’ OR ‘profughi’ OR ‘clandestini’ OR ‘asylum seekers’ OR ‘refugees’ |
| Corriere della Sera | 233 | 34 | 18 | 65 |
| selected | 1 | 27 | 6 | 12 |
| La Stampa | 153 | 25 | 7 | 62 |
| selected | 14 | 18 | 3 | 11 |
| Il Giornale | 100 | 19 | 29 | 30 |
| selected | 4 | 12 | 15 | 14 |
| Il Fatto Quotidiano | 296 | 22 | 15 | 14 |
| Selected | 2 | 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Total selected 160 |
| Subsets | Justice claim | Event | Newspaper | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Solidarity (lack of) |
| STRONG: non-domination | EU-Turkey Statement | Corriere La Stampa |
| Responsibility responsible/irresponsible behaviour |
| WEAK: non-domination; impartiality and mutual recognition | End of Mare Nostrum Eventless week | Il Giornale La Stampa |
| Westphalian migration as a problem |
| STRONG: non-domination | EU-Turkey Statement End of Mare Nostrum Eventless week | Il Giornale |
| Instrumental migration used as a weapon |
| STRONG: non-domination; mutual-recognition | European elections | La Stampa |
| Humanitarian poor conditions |
| WEAK: impartiality and mutual recognition | EU-Turkey Statement Eventless week | All |
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Silvia D’Amato and Sonia Lucarelli for their valuable suggestions/comments on an earlier version of this article. My gratitude also goes to four anonymous reviewers, who helped address some of the weaknesses of the text. This article draws on research conducted in the context of the project GLOBUS – Reconsidering European Contributions to Global Justice, which received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 693609. For more information: http://www.globus.uio.no.
Notes
1 ‘Così è (se vi pare)’, translated by some as ‘Right you are (if you think so)’, is a comedy by the Italian writer Luigi Pirandello centred on the impossibility of knowing the absolute truth as this is interpreted differently in accordance with different human perspectives.
2 An explanation of the terminology, for example the choice between ‘refugee’ and ‘migration’ crisis, can be found in the Introduction to this Special Issue (D’Amato and Lucarelli 2019).
3 While most observation periods lasted three weeks, the observation span was reduced for the eventless week because of the combination of more generic keywords used. The keywords used were translated into English in the table when there was an accurate English translation, exceptions are ‘profughi’ and ‘clandestini’, two terms used particularly frequently in Italian which do not have a precise English translation. Very few articles were available for the ‘European election’ period: hence, the choice was made to extend the research in a second round to all articles generally displaying the words ‘migrants’ OR ‘migration’ OR ‘immigration’ OR ‘clandestini’ OR ‘profughi’ OR ‘asylum seekers’ OR ‘refugees’ to search for a relation with elections. Predictably, the number of articles retrieved with these new criteria was significantly higher than in the other case studies, however this second round did not increase the number of articles suitable for the analysis.
4 They were chosen rather than other ‘mainstream’ newspapers, such as La Repubblica because they were easily accessible through the LexisNexis database.
5 Factiva was used to retrieve articles from these newspapers. Research on Fatto’s digital archive was required for two periods: the European Parliament elections and the end of Mare Nostrum, as Factiva did not show results on these specific topics. With the exception of these research periods for Fatto, all articles were drawn from print versions of the newspapers.
6 Exceptional measures refer mainly to the reception projects launched after significant increases in arrivals by sea.
7 Law 132/2018 sets restrictions in the realm of both international protection and immigration. Among the most important is the curb on humanitarian protection and the limitation of integration and social inclusion activities only to persons entitled to international protection (hence excluding asylum seekers lacking that status). See http://www.interno.gov.it/sites/default/files/allegati/decreto_immigrazione_e_sicurezza_definitivo.pdf