In the second part of our debate on the media and asylum Mr P, a refugee from Eritrea, Ms N, worker on mentoring schemes for asylum seekers, Ms M, community and outreach worker and Ms A, a Danish volunteer and member of the Media Group, discuss how to gain access to and work positively with the media.
Mr P, a refugee from Eritrea: The vast majority, certainly of African refugees, are so engaged in day to day survival they haven't been able to follow mainstream politics and don't know what is being said. Come the elections and there is a lot of debate. You feel more nervous during election periods, because the media is so loud and condemnatory in those periods. In the last elections, particularly from the Conservative side, there was a lot of reiteration of refugees, refugees, refugees as the problem. Some of us began to see how it works for the first time: but we have no means of responding. We have no access to the media. Refugees might expect their own community organisation to stick up for them. But the truth is that they don't have these rebuttal mechanisms either. They aren't structured to respond fast.
Ms N, worker on mentoring schemes for asylum seekers: We were asked to help this TV team with their programme on female genital mutilation (FGM) issues. More4 had done some research for a section of their news programme - 4 or 5 minutes they said.
They came to the school where our women's forum meets. They were talking with the women for about four or five hours, gauging responses and trying to provoke a debate about FGM among the women, asking how their views had changed since they came to the UK, and would they have it done on their daughters?
It is a really sensitive topic and I didn't want the women to be shown in a bad light and I didn't want anyone to be upset - so the whole thing was carefully planned. But they were all very comfortable and could express sensitive, personal feelings. It was quite a positive experience from our point of view because it really did start up a debate among the women we work with and one they very much wanted to continue. In short, they were keen to raise it up our agenda as one of our main projects. Coming to the UK and talking to people who thought differently about FGM, they had indeed changed their ideas about it and realised how harmful it can be. Now they thought they would like to try and put this message across to other women.
But when we finally got to see the programme, it was not as positive as we had hoped. It was only 2 minutes long. What they clearly weren't interested in was how far people really have come and their opinions now. As others have said, we couldn't get rid of them: they contacted us persistently wanting this story. But they ended their piece with a policewoman threatening fines and prison for anyone involved - and so after cutting out everything good to do with the community, along comes this policewoman to tell you that it is difficult to police, and it becomes a story about criminal offence - not about changing minds, how communities can fix things like this, and already are fixing it. What a missed opportunity!
We certainly learnt for the future to be a bit more assertive and to double check exactly what is going to go into a piece. But everyone watched it - some of them even got together to watch it and afterwards they said, "Well, they didn't show that we have changed and that we are striving to make change happen and to change people's views of this process." Yet the end result was that it encouraged them - to keep their education campaign going.
Ms M, community and outreach worker: When I worked with domestic workers, every media outlet that approached us wanted the same thing: the modern slavery story with migrant domestic workers being trapped in houses, their passports taken, and, if there was physical and sexual abuse, so much the better because it made for a better story.
We worked with journalists from a lot of different papers and this was not just the tabloids - The Guardian, Independent, Evening Standard - it was the same experience every time. In each case we learned that we had to pick our journalists. Nearly all of them seemed to approach us with a story at the back of their heads. From the mainstream press it went something like this: "They are victims, these migrant domestic workers, and they are horribly abused and deserve our pity."
In fact, yes the people we worked with had had terrible experiences. But they were really quite strong and able: moreover, they were making something of their lives. No-one wanted to know that.
It is a love-hate relationship with the media. It is really hard to influence the outcome once you agree to work with them, and even if they agree to let you see the edit. The truth is, whatever they come across, they are not going to change that story. They have their own agenda.
Ms. A, Danish volunteer, member of the Media Group: What we try to do in our media liaison and facilitation group is to work with the assumption that journalists will really twist things around. We take things slowly step by step. First we invite them to come to one of our meetings, and in individual cases, this has worked well. Journalists have walked away from the meeting absolutely astonished about what they have heard because most of these journalists have never met a refugee or an asylum seeker in their lives. Some journalists came and were hesitant, but once they'd been to the meeting, they really changed their opinions.
So, we want them to understand what we're trying to do: and what the stories are from our point of view. We're not trying to promote that view alone - but we want them to try to tell the truth, and we are careful about who we invite along.
Secondly, we like to know in advance that a particular journalist coming to us wants to cover something in particular, from this angle and wants us to talk about such and such: that's OK then. When they cut ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages courses), they asked if they could meet people with views about not having access any more classes. Then, at least, we knew what to expect.
So, we want the journalist to come to us so that they too can have an experience: they change because of it. We offer them the opportunity to come to us and learn from us. We also have to say to our people - it's your story, don't talk about whatever you are not comfortable to talk about - preparing and practising is important because your words can be twisted. Journalists have deadlines, and often say, "I've only got today". And having migrants or refugees ready to have their picture taken and their name published - that's not so easy. And the media are not so interested in doing it anonymously...
What is missing is the understanding of the complexity of a human story and the fact that a refugee is not an activist waiting to change public opinion about asylum - a refugee is someone who is just a person, trying to live their lives.
