This week’s material included Sarah Bishop’s “An International Analysis of Governmental Media Campaigns to Deter Asylum Seekers” as well as three videos: “No Way” by the Australian Government, “Stricter Asylum Regulations in Norway” and “Know The Facts” by Gil Kerlikowske. These three artifacts all focused on international media campaigns that are targeted at deterring immigrants from entering any given country in order to seek asylum, or for any other reason.
An International Analysis of Governmental Media Campaigns to Deter Asylum Seekers breaks down the international plan to have deterrence campaigns aimed at immigrants. It was very insightful, as it gives a good overview of the fact that more research needs to be done about these deterrence campaigns. However, Prof. Bishop was able to give us a good idea of a few listed concepts. First was the possible foundations of these campaigns. They find their foundations in the ‘governmentality’ of Nations and and actors trying to gain reach. Sarah Bishop also breaks down the Methods by which these campaigns are distributed. They are primarily distributed through the internet, due to the low cost of just posting a video online or buying a domain, rather than paying for a billboard in another country. Some are distributed through posters but a big one seemed to be the internet. One that stuck out to me in particular was Norway’s “Stricter Asylum Regulations in Norway” campaign because this one was shown on national television. The effects of this on immigrants’ psyche could be catastrophic. The Professor’s analysis also included who was at risk in these campaigns. The Norway campaign in particular was one that showed how much of a negative impact these campaigns can have, not only on migrants, but on in-nation citizens. Within days of this campaign being released to the public, the citizens of Norway began commenting very explicit things about and directed at migrants. I don’t personally see what more I would add to Professor Bishop’s narrative analysis of the artifacts, seeing as each one was thoroughly covered and assessed. There was a clear breakdown of each one, which gave me an even broader understanding of it in a grand scheme.
Australia’s “No Way” campaign video features an Australian man standing in front of a green-screened ocean with a boat in it. This Australian man, who is dressed in military clothing, is seen stating that migrants should “not believe the lies of people-smugglers” because they will steal their money and put their families at risk for nothing. In a strange way, I am not completely against this video by itself, because it doesn’t look racially charged or like it has any bias. Depending on the laws of Australia, immigrants might actually be putting a lot at risk by trying to come in illegally. It does, however severely deter those who might just be trying to seek asylum and they have no other choice.
“Stricter Asylum Regulations” by the Norwegian government starts with a quote that says “Are you leaving your country in search of a job?” I found this particular question to be a bit patronizing but also necessary. I see the objective of the Norwegian government in trying to create this campaign video. Many people might actually be mislead in what they believe seeking asylum is. It honestly would be a tragedy if people packed up their entire families because they were looking for better financial opportunities and they thought that was legitimate reason for seeking asylum. They would be turned away at the border. However, this video in tandem with other forms of rhetoric could easily be taken as simply patronizing and anti-immigrant.
In the “Know The Facts” campaign, the video started off with Gil talking about the shortcomings of the border patrol in past years and how they are attempting to do better that before. I liked the fact that Gil was asked about what message was being sent from this campaign. Gil responded in a logical way and stated that he believes the message that was intended to be sent is actually being received now. What he sounds like he wants people to see is that they can incur great loss by attempting to illegally cross the border. I don’t think what he said was particularly malicious inherently, but he did say “You will be returned” as if that would 100% be the case. That is not the case all the time, and that should not always be the case. That was a bit of dangerous wording.
Questions:
- What would be a more effective way of distributing these immigration campaigns, so that migrants get a legitimate message from it, without it being patronizing?
- Is it a problem that some of the campaigns are a bit prejudicial in the fact that they assume why and how certain people are trying to enter their countries?
Grade: 4/5