When it comes to media coverage of immigration the facts that are given the floor, the context in which they are interpreted and the conclusions that then emerge make rational debate, let alone effective policy making, nigh impossible.And does that have anything to do with the progressives insistence that any such discussion is ‘racist’?
No, that would be crazy talk, eh Gary?
The problem is not that the facts are selective – all facts are selected somehow and for some purpose. But they are selected poorly and with the specific intent of creating panic, fostering resentment and stoking xenophobia.Whew! All that?
And it works. A Mori poll in 2002 revealed that more than a third of the country believed there were too many immigrants. It's not difficult to see why.Because there are too many immigrants? Particularly in their areas?
Well, no. It’s all an optical illusion, according to Gary:
The public's mean estimation of the proportion of immigrants in Britain is 23%; the actual figure was around 4%.Ah, yes, Comparing numbers with area of the UK (including all the farmland plus uninhabitable rocky bits, naturally!) to come up with a harmless sounding figure to ‘prove’ that your opponents are all racist.
Completely overlooking the fact that that 4% is almost entirely in already overcrowded inner and outer cities…
The rest of the article is basically a rant against the media for whipping up prejudice against migrants, and not worth the photons it took to publish on CiF.
Unemployment is important and people's anxieties about immigration should be addressed.That, Gary, is the last thing you and your ilk will ever allow. You aren’t sure of the answers you’ll get…
But their prejudices needn't be pandered to and can't be confronted on the basis of wanton misinterpretations.You mean, like the one you just tried?