Humans move. For 215 million or more people today, this movement is across borders to establish themselves as newcomers within foreign nations. How this movement is covered by the media--what stereotypes and adjectives are used, how factual the story is and how much it is told in historic context--is vital to immigrant integration. It creates context.

Society calls it the Fourth Estate: the media. Media writ large bends and breaks governments, shapes and colors all manner of issues and exists in a realm of relative impunity as it determines societal agenda even while providing the most amplified commentary on the issues. "Media" extends to all forms of public communication, and the rapid rise of social media has a vitality and growth curve that is impressive and changing too rapidly for solid research data to be done about its reach. 

Every minute 13 hours of videos are uploaded to 'You Tubes.' Every second 5 million Tweets are shared. The glut of information and social use of media grows and the avenues of clear or effective messaging grow increasingly unclear. Yet, the cumulative impact of social media on an issue remains powerful.  Academic research provides little hard evidence about the persuasive power of mainstream media; while there is a rich body of media analysis, there is no definitive documentation as to its power.

Coca-Cola values media, evident in a $2 billion marketing/advertising budget. It has an inescapable market presence as a result of continued and persistent presence in all manner of media from soccer stadium signage to newspaper advertisements. Media sells and reinforces market choices. Issues, however, have only political rhetoric but little media power, paling in comparison to corporate media messages. To distinguish themselves in the media, wherever more than one commercial media outlet exists, editorial perspectives differentiate one source from the other. Their choice of issues gains audience and differentiation pulls the disaffected into a particular market share.

In this environment, finding 'hot buttons' - issues that excite attention - is a highly valued skill. Both media and elected officials seek similar issues that can engage the community, differentiate one outlet or politician from the next and thus deliver...be it consumers or voters.

Academics validate the observation that there is a positive correlation between media users and media content. As one source states: "There is extensive observational research linking attitudes and behavior to media exposure. The most common approach is to ask survey respondents about their media exposure and their political views and behaviors. ... It is common to find associations between media usage levels and attitudes and reported behavior (Clarke and Fredin 1978; Miller, Goldenberg et al. 1979; Bybee, Mcleod et al. 1981; Garramone and Atkin 1986; Lieske 1989; Brians and Wattenberg 1996; Dalton, Beck et al. 1998). 

It is clear that people tend toward selection of media that conforms to preconceived notions. For instance, "indeed, recent theoretical work on the economics of media competition is premised on the notion that consumers seek out media sources that share their political perspective. In Mullainathan and Shleifer (2005), consumers prefer news that agrees with their prior views, while in Gentzkow and Shapiro (2005) consumers think that outlets that share their political perspective are more reliable and therefore provide more valuable information. This selection effect will cause an upward bias in the assessment of media influence" (Alan Gerber, Yale, 2005.)  Repeated studies show that when a conservative news source comes into a community, it can increase conservative voting by 8% ( see Gerber). 

What conclusions arise from these studies about immigration as a media wedge issue? It is evident that the language of the civil discourse is normalized by the press. Immigrants and migrants were rebranded as 'illegals' in the US in references that appear to have been popularized by Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004. His views were regularly reported by both mainstream media and more decidedly positioned press. Listen to media clips from one outlet to hear the adjectives used click here. One result is public repetition and a legitimization of terms and positions. 

Those who frame the issue as it is then covered deserve more credit than the intermediate story tellers. There was a propaganda war, waged by public spokespeople, in which blaming immigrants for social ills to newcomers has become de rigueur. Congressman Tom Tancredo of California could frequently be heard blaming immigrants for job loss, disease or crime. Congressman Lou Barletta said "We will get rid of them.  No third world cesspool." He was defending Hazleton, PA from an "assault" of immigrants and few picked up the differentiation of the status (or that no increase in crime or social ills could be attributed to the relatively small number of newcomers). All suffer when political rhetoric is accusatory and fear filled. It took until April 2013 for Associated Press to agree that 'illegal immigrant' was a pejorative term that would no longer be used by its reporters. The NYTimes followed less clearly, but ceased to use 'illegal immigrants' as a descriptive term.

Unfortunately, Europe is following the negative U.S. model. The former reference "irregular migrant" is increasingly replaced by "illegal." Lega Nord (Italy) in a campaign worked the issue in pursuit of increased voters. Deputy Transport Minister Roberto Castelli said Italy needed to protect itself. "This problem could become so unbelievably big that we must ask ourselves if we need to use weapons. . .there is a risk this invasion could grow to millions or tens of millions," he said.

Invasion is not a term readily found before June 1983 to describe immigration. While President Ronald Reagan moved to grant the largest amnesty in US history, he also took to the newsroom a new view of the southern border. He referenced "a tidal wave of refugees - this time they'll be feet people and not boat people - swarming into our country seeking safe haven from communist repression" (June 21,1983, Washington Post). The amnesty was highly effective as one of a series of efforts to incorporate millions of Mexican Americans. At the same time, the rhetoric was highly successful in fashioning a wedge issue that has lived on for 30 years, even now when Mexican migration northward is at net zero. For more information, please click here. 

Average Americans differ from public figures. Polls indicate broad acceptance of pathways to citizenship. Diversity is familiar, and in most cities and in coastal states the acceptance and inclusion of the foreign born happens with minimal strife or unrest. The perpetual challenge is to be inclusive, integrating as many in as effective ways as possible for the greater good, the good of both our receiving society and the individual migrant.  Where the rhetoric is divisive, regardless of party or purpose, our task is to hold media accountable to facts and our national creed - that we are all created equal and should have equal opportunity.