Abstract
The media coverage of immigration serves as an important test for modern democracies’ ability to handle difficult public issues. Systematic and comparative studies over longer time periods are, however, still rare. This is deeply unfortunate as the nature of both immigration and the press systems vary considerably not only across nations but also over time. This article charts the immigration debate in seven Scandinavian newspapers from the birth of modern immigration in the early seventies to the present-day situation. While supporting claims about a general historical shift towards a more problematizing and cultural discourse in Scandinavia, the analysis also identifies major differences in how countries, publications, and genres have handled this complex issue, which brings out fundamental dilemmas for both modern welfare states and journalists. Using the method of multiple correspondence analysis and subsequent cluster analysis, the article also demonstrates how historical press coverage can be fruitfully studied using Geometric Data Analysis as an alternative to frequentist methods.
Aknowledgements
The author would like to thank the good colleagues in the Scanpub project, first and foremost the project leader Jostein Gripsrud and Anniken Hagelund for their helpful comments to the article, and postdoc Hilmar Mjelde for having been an integral partner in the work on the quantitative content analysis, including the development of the codebook, supervising the coding, and analyzing the material in other articles from the project.
Funding
The author gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Norwegian Research Council (FRIHUMSAM ToppForsk Grant number 250598).
References
Barker, M. J. (1981). The new racism: Conservatives and the ideology of the tribe. Toronto: Junction Books.Search in Google Scholar
Benson, R. (2013). Shaping immigration news: A French-American comparison. New York: CUP.10.1017/CBO9781139034326Search in Google Scholar
Benzécri, J.-P. (1973). L’analyse des données I–II [Data Analysis I–II]. Paris: Dunod.Search in Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.10.4324/9781315680347-10Search in Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1991). On symbolic power. In Language and Symbolic Power. London: Polity Press.10.1177/0308275X7900401307Search in Google Scholar
Brochmann, G., & Hagelund, A. (2010). Velferdens grenser [The limits of welfare]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Search in Google Scholar
Brochmann, G., & Hagelund, A. (2012). Immigration policy and the Scandinavian welfare state 1945–2010. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian.10.1057/9781137015167Search in Google Scholar
Chouliaraki, L., Georgiou, M., & Zaborowski, R. (2017). The European “migration crisis” and the media. London: LSE.Search in Google Scholar
Eberl, J.-M., Meltzer, C. E., Heidenreich, T., Herrero, B., Theorin, N., Lind, F., …, Strömbäck, J. (2018). The European media discourse on immigration and its effects: A literature review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 42(3), 207–223.10.1080/23808985.2018.1497452Search in Google Scholar
Eide, M. (2007). Encircling the power of journalism. Nordicom Review, 28, 21–29.Search in Google Scholar
Eide, E., & Nikunen, K. (2016). Introduction. In E. Eide, & K. Nikunen (Eds.), Media in motion (pp. 1–18). London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Eide, E., & Simonsen, A. H. (2007). Mistenkelige utlendinger [Suspicious foreigners]. Oslo: Cappelen Damm.Search in Google Scholar
Figenschou, T. U., & Thorbjørnsrud, K. (2015). Faces of an invisible population. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(7), 783–801.10.1177/0002764215573256Search in Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C., & Krogstrup, J. (2008). Immigration as a political issue in Denmark and Sweden. European Journal of Political Research, 47(5), 610–634.10.1111/j.1475-6765.2008.00777.xSearch in Google Scholar
Gripsrud, J. (2018). Norsk hamskifte? [A sea-change in the Norwegian immigration debate?] Bergen: Vigmostad & Bjørke.Search in Google Scholar
Gripsrud, J. (2019). SCANPUB: Nations, nationalisms, nation-states and public spheres. Javnost – The Public, 1–20.Search in Google Scholar
Grundmann, R., Smith, D., & Wright, S. (2000). National elites and transnational discourses in the Balkan War. European Journal of Communication, 15(3), 299–320.10.1177/0267323100015003003Search in Google Scholar
Hagelund, A. (2003). The importance of being decent: Political discourse on immigration in Norway 1970–2002. Oslo: Unipax.Search in Google Scholar
Hallin, D. C. (1989). The uncensored war: The media and Vietnam. London: UCP.Search in Google Scholar
Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems. Three models of media and politics. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511790867.003Search in Google Scholar
Heidar, K., Berntzen, E., & Bakke, E. (2013). Politikk i Europa [Politics in Europe]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Search in Google Scholar
Horsti, K. (2008). Overview of Nordic media research on immigration and ethnic relations. Nordicom Review, 29(2), 275–293.10.1515/nor-2017-0191Search in Google Scholar
Hovden, J. F., & Mjelde, H. (2019a). Increasingly controversial, cultural, and political: The immigration debate in Scandinavian newspapers 1970–2016. Javnost, 26(2), 138–157.10.1080/13183222.2019.1589285Search in Google Scholar
Hovden, J. F., & Mjelde, H. (2019b). Immigration debate in Scandinavian newspapers 1970–2016. Methodology, codebook and selected tables. Bergen: SCANPUB.Search in Google Scholar
Hovden, J. F., Mjelde, H., & Gripsrud, J. (2018). The Syrian refugee crisis in Scandinavian newspapers. Communications, 43(3), 325–356.10.1515/commun-2018-0013Search in Google Scholar
Kracauer, S. (1952). The challenge of qualitative content analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 631–642.10.1086/266427Search in Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London: Sage.10.4135/9781071878781Search in Google Scholar
Kunelius, R., Eide, E., & Hahn, O. (2007). Reading the Mohammed Cartoons Controversy. Freiburg: Projekt Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Lebart, L., & Salem, A. (1994). Statistique textuelle [Textual statistics]. Paris: Dunod.Search in Google Scholar
Le Roux, B., & Rouanet, H. (2010). Multiple correspondence analysis. London: Sage.10.4135/9781412993906Search in Google Scholar
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Search in Google Scholar
Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. (1967). Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives (vol. 7). Free press.Search in Google Scholar
Madsen, J. G. (2000). Mediernes konstruktion af flygtninge- og indvandrerspørgsmålet [The mediated construction of the immigration question]. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Search in Google Scholar
Masini, A., Van Aelst, P., Zerback, T., Reinemann, C., Mancini, P., Mazzoni, M., …, Coen, S. (2017). Measuring and explaining the diversity of voices and viewpoints in the news. Journalism Studies, 1–20.10.1080/1461670X.2017.1343650Search in Google Scholar
Nord, L. (2008). Comparing Nordic media systems: North between West and East? European Journal of Communication, 1, 15.Search in Google Scholar
Pew (2019). Eastern and Western Europeans differ on importance of religion, views of minorities, and key social issues.Search in Google Scholar
Poole, E. (2002). Reporting Islam: Media representations of British Muslims: IB Tauris.10.5040/9780755604579Search in Google Scholar
Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20.10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.xSearch in Google Scholar
Strömbäck, J., Andersson, F., & Nedlund, E. (2017). Invandring i medierna: Hur rapporterade svenska tidningar 2010–2015? [Immigration in the news]. Stockholm: Delegationen för migrationsstudier.Search in Google Scholar
Yilmaz, F. (2016). How the workers became Muslims. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.8857103Search in Google Scholar
APPENDIX
Variables and categories contributing above-average to axis 1–3. Absolute contributions and coordinates.
DIMENSION 1 (+) | Ctr | Coord | DIMENSION 2 (+) | Ctr | Coord | DIMENSION 3 (+) | Ctr | Coord |
Multiculturalism: Yes | 9.7 | 1.52 | Racism: Yes | 9.1 | 1.01 | THREAT – Social cohesion: Yes | 10.1 | 1.83 |
HERO – Integration: Yes | 9.6 | 1.72 | VICTIM: Racism and discrim.: Yes | 6.4 | 0.82 | Immigration debate: Yes | 7.5 | 1.51 |
HERO – Good worker: Yes | 7.1 | 1.36 | Crime: Yes | 5.1 | 0.64 | THREAT – Fiscal: Yes | 6.7 | 1.59 |
Education: Yes | 6.1 | 1.23 | Legal immigration: No | 4.1 | 0.41 | Politician (voice): Yes | 5.6 | 0.69 |
Attitudes: Yes | 5.6 | 1.42 | Religion: Yes | 3.7 | 0.92 | Welfare: Yes | 4.7 | 0.75 |
HERO – Diversity: Yes | 5.3 | 1.99 | VICTIM – Humanitarian: No | 1.7 | 0.23 | Economy: Yes | 4.5 | 0.96 |
Work: Yes | 4.8 | 0.81 | Integration: No | 1.4 | 0.22 | THREAT – Public order: Yes | 4.4 | 0.77 |
Integration: Yes | 3.9 | 0.62 | Integration: Yes | 3.1 | 0.46 | |||
Culture: Yes | 2.9 | 1.13 | DIMENSION 2 (-) | Ctr | Coord | Religion: Yes | 3.1 | 0.74 |
Immigration debate: Yes | 2.7 | 1.08 | VICTIM – Humanitarian: Yes | 6.3 | -0.85 | Media (voice): Yes | 3.1 | 0.88 |
Family and customs: Yes | 2.4 | 0.71 | Legal immigration: Yes | 5.9 | -0.59 | Family and customs: Yes | 1.9 | 0.53 |
THREAT – Social cohesion: Yes | 2.4 | 1.09 | Welfare: Yes | 5.7 | -0.93 | National security: Yes | 1.6 | 0.56 |
VICTIM: Racism and discrim.: Yes | 2.1 | 0.50 | Economy: Yes | 5.0 | -1.14 | |||
Racism: Yes | 1.7 | 0.47 | THREAT – Fiscal: Yes | 3.4 | -1.27 | DIMENSION 3 (-) | ||
Religion: Yes | 1.5 | 0.63 | Work: Yes | 3.3 | -0.63 | HERO – Good worker: Yes | 8.3 | -1.22 |
Integration: Yes | 3.3 | -0.53 | Immigrant (voice): Yes | 4.8 | -0.66 | |||
DIMENSION 1 (-) | Ctr | Coord | Civil rights: Yes | 3.0 | -0.69 | Culture: Yes | 3.7 | -1.05 |
Crime: Yes | 2.7 | -0.50 | Racism: No | 2.5 | -0.28 | HERO – Integration: Yes | 3.0 | -0.79 |
Civil society (voice): Yes | 2.0 | -0.46 | Crime: No | 2.3 | -0.28 | Work: Yes | 2.5 | -0.48 |
Integration: No | 1.6 | -0.26 | VICTIM: Racism and discrim.: No | 2.0 | -0.25 | HERO – Diversity: Yes | 2.2 | -1.06 |
VICTIM – Humanitarian: Yes | 1.6 | -0.46 | Education: Yes | 1.9 | -0.63 | Politician (voice): No | 1.6 | -0.20 |
Illegal immigration: Yes | 1.5 | -0.77 | VICTIM – War: Yes | 1.9 | -0.88 | |||
Legal immigration: Yes | 1.4 | -0.31 | HERO – Good worker: Yes | 1.7 | -0.61 | |||
THREAT – Public order: Yes | 1.3 | -0.51 | NGO (voice): Yes | 1.5 | -0.57 |
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
